I have been looking at pool pumps instead of pond pumps. Most of the "water feature" pumps out there are toys. I don't know if it feasible yet but I was thinking about charging a deep cycle battery while another deep cycle battery runs a pump. I have looked at pool pumps and a lot of them exceed 3000 gph. But it takes a lot of juice to run them. Still lookin...still thinkin...
how about this agricultural grade solar system...one has 925gph rate www.capsolar.com/summer-winter-watering-systems/ I think I usef a pool pump or a sump pump there weren't any solar pumps when I had my pond...
Solar produces DC power. Water pumps can be DC or AC power. If it's a DC powered pump, then the solar panel(s) are sized to meet the DC power requirements. If it's an AC powered pump, and you use solar panels, then you'll need a DC to AC inverter, and the solar panels are sized to meet the input of the inverter you choose. Adding a battery to the system, which is DC power, allows water pump use when the solar panels are not creating enough power...in this case you are charging the batteries with the solar power...
but obviously it can be done...in the website link I provided there is a photo of the system and there was a small wind turbine as well, I don't know if the turbine was part of the solar package or something the rancher added separately...
Sears has been showing a little promise. I can get a solar panel to charge a battery pretty reasonable (needs a voltage regulator to avoid overcharging) and they have a solar pump that gets 200 GPH for about $169.00. It is supposed to have an 80 inch head. So maybe I could get a four foot fall on the waterfall for gas exchange. I could run 24/7. I am getting closer to what I want to spend on this project. I'll start back working on the pond/tank as soon as I can get some more sand. Getting closer.... I can get a timer control 16 watt solar water pump with remote control for 199.99 and it pumps 409 gallons an hour. Of course this would be under ideal conditions.
actually the warming of the earth will beneficial to help feed the population more land will be available to grow food and the added CO2 is beneficial to plant growth so global warming might save millions from starvation
Roughly it appears the far north and far south latitudes will benefit from greater warming. However at the latitudes nearer the equator the opposite effect appears to be the case. Lester Brown, the world renown agronomist has researched the matter and he says expert opinion puts the cumulative effect on agriculture to be roughly 5 % output loss for every degree cent. increase in warming. As for the CO2 increase the benefit/loss to the plant appears to depend on the variety and species of plant.
I was just pointing out there are lots of options...and a wind turbine is another DC power source which can be added to a system to charge batteries...
I was thinking again about the interrelation of these factors, & how many try to isolate them as independent of each other. The progressive left, especially, seem to gloss over the correlation between them, & don't consider shortages or surpluses as being factors. Population, too, is mostly ignored. They are big on demanding full rights to food, housing, healthcare, etc.. for the poor world wide, yet have no solution how to grow more food to do it. They also want to shut down fossil fuels, currently the only way we can get cheap, abundant food. They also favor rewarding overpopulating societies & penalizing low growth ones. They see a society with low growth, & they want to ship hordes of people from overcrowded, starving areas to it. Then they want to make public policy rewarding uncontrolled breeding, so low growth areas will move into higher growth ones. It is very perplexing, the mixed signals the left sends regarding planet earth. They concoct unscientific models threatening global disaster, if we don't immediately stop using fossil fuels, yet they also lament the plight of the 3rd world poor, demanding we send them food or bring them to the industrialized countries, so they can continue their rape of the planet, there. They want to shut down western industry, but allow 3rd world exploitation of the planet & resources. If they were consistent, they would make sterilization a contingency on aid. That would be a requirement in any UN refugee camp. But they only want to kill the one thing that can feed all these people.. fossil fuels. They don't want to spread electricity, or care about the dwindling rain forests, or promote responsible population management. It is like a global cloward piven strategy, where the entire earth suffers collapse for their deluded agenda. More species will go extinct, more forests will be razed for grazing or crops, & more people will continue to populate & consume the ever dwindling global resources. But a comprehensive strategy or analysis is not wanted. They have their pet agendas, & nothing else matters. If it were not bringing catastrophe upon all of the planet, it might be funny. It is global management of the absurd.
When you evoke politics in these complex issues you immediately start out in a lose-lose scenario. Us against them! We are right and they are wrong! We have proof and they do not! Not to mention stereotyping entire political party memberships? If we could wave a magic wand and remove from society everything political...all of the issues we have today with potential climate change, fossil fuels, population growth, food, housing, jobs, education, economy, poverty, healthcare, immigration, 3rd world issues, etc. will still exist. No one in politics wants to clearly and concisely define the root issues/problems. IMO the reason for this is because the solutions will be obvious, which will require consensus to both define and solve, and politicians and voters do not have the stomach to handle this! No one can accept consensus and Americans won't manage and/or fund improvements/solutions. Lastly, once you move outside of the USA, outside of our control, and step into global issues, the lowly USA is at the mercy of the other 7 billion people on this planet and their governments, and their religions, and their cultures. We can't even do a great job in the USA on all of these issues much less expect to control others outside of the USA. I've always said, regarding humans on Earth, that we're just along for the ride, that if Mother Nature wishes to snuff us out, there is nothing we can do about it. I feel the same about people and politics, that if we can't exponentially increase our problem solving skills and consensus on issues, then we're on a very bumpy ride and it's a coin toss where it is headed...
Unfortunately, these kinds of issues are always political. They are used & distorted & pitched in propaganda settings, to promote an agenda. So that seems to me to be unavoidable. My last post was a complaint about those distortions, but the OP is not political, but analytical of the subjects. I agree completely that man is just along for the ride on spaceship earth.. he thinks he's the pinnacle of wisdom & intelligence, but he can't even program his remote. Ultimately, the universe will go on, or burn out, or restart, or whatever popular theory one might have, but it is all beyond our control. Still, a bit of wise management practices here on planet earth would help.. & if we could follow common logic, the scientific method, & use common sense, the world could be a better place. But that has never been the goal of humans. Death & destruction seems to be a higher priority, so i suspect we'll continue along that line.
They are only political because voters and politicians are incapable of clearly and concisely defining the root issues. Let's pretend that the root issue of the public education system is only 75% of the kids graduate and another 25% are idiots. Do we say 'hey this is great'? Or do we say 'we must graduate 100%'? Do we say 'being in the lowest 25% percentile is not acceptable'? This is why no one will set honest and accurate goals...because we can't handle the solutions! In the above case it is unlikely we will ever do anything about the 50% who fail public education because we refuse to fund a world class public education system...ain't going to happen! It is clear in your words above that it is impossible to solve complex problems if everything is 'used & distorted & pitched in propaganda to promote agendas'. If we know this then why do so many people spend all of their time arguing politics? It's a 100% waste of time. One person's 'wise management practices' is another person's joke! Same with 'logic'. Same with 'science'. Today there is so little respect for math and science that it's impossible to find any consensus...so it will be a bumpy ride...
Good points. Although i agree that the values of the scientific method & critical thinking are being despised, & 'anti-science' is muddying the idea that there are 'truths' that can be known, I cannot surrender my mind to be tossed about in a sea of relativity. I've got to stick with logic & following basic rules for determining truth. I don't hold too many as absolute, but some things the evidence leans one way more than another. I still see the trend of propaganda & agenda driven 'science' as being an enemy of truth & the quest for knowledge. Fortunately, scientific truth is not 'consensus' based. It matters little to me what the popular view is, or how it is pitched by those with a hidden agenda, but the facts & logic.. THOSE are what give validity to a view or theory. Arguing politics.. you are right.. it is a waste of time, It seems to be an amusement of sorts for us, or some kind of mental challenge, to articulate & refine our own views. But arguing politics & religion, taboos in polite society, have been popular pastimes for millennia, i doubt it will go out of style.
Regarding this thread, if we ever are going to be proactive on the issues of population, energy and food, it is paramount that we pay attention to the math and science of what's going on around us, especially stuff in which humans contribute and/or influence. People only know what they know or choose to know, so when they are confronted with new or conflicting information, no matter the source, that information will be digested according to what makes them feel comfortable more than on the merits of science and math. If so-called 'science' is 'propaganda and agenda driven' then it's probably not science. Sadly, each individual chooses how they define 'science'. Validity can validate something but if the person does not wish to accept this validation, they won't. If someone believes Earth is 6000 years old, nothing is going to change their minds. I still believe we refuse to find consensus because if we do this gives us a starting point to provide solution(s). Gawd forbid we all would agree on something because now we need to take the appropriate actions to remedy the problem, and IMO, we won't do it...
