Papercreters: [papercreters] Re: MIXERS;

Because I desperately want to have a mixer that is above the forms I pour the papercrete into. Not at ground level. I want to make gravity work in my favor.

That is something I learned to appreciate by watching you, Judith. I'd rather build an electric mixer than haul buckets.

I'm more than capable of hauling buckets, but it's a lot more fun to build things with motors in them. Maybe I'm wierd.

No... Correction, I'm definitly weird. That has been proven a long time ago as everyone here should know.

--- In papercreters@yahoogroups.com, JUDITH WILLIAMS <williams_judith@...> wrote:
>
>
> I haven't followed this conversation completely but am wondering why you wouldn't use a stationary mixer hooked to the axle of a vehicle, better yet a biodeisel one? Like Spaceman has.
>
>
>
> Follow progress on the new project at http://www.papercretebyjudith.com/blog
>
> More papercrete info at http://squidoo.com/papercretebyjudith
>
>
> To: papercreters@yahoogroups.com
> From: christine@...
> Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2012 18:10:17 -0700
> Subject: Re: [papercreters] Re: MIXERS;
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Jay, I don't think it's relevant how long it takes to charge
> a battery, or 8, or whatever.
>
>
> We have a very SMALL system, so small that we have our fridge on a timer
> so it only runs a few times a day or once a day in winter.
>
>
> However, we frequently have EXCESS power in the afternoon. So
> that's when we run the food processor to make fudge, the skill saw to cut
> firewood and the washer. Speaking of which, be just fried the
> second Maytag washer after running some old full size washer for years
> without problems. It seems that the Maytag waterpump or
> moving to the spin cycle caused the problem as washing was
> fine.
>
>
> We've tried running it off the 3000 watt generator, the inverter with the
> generator charging the full batteries and whatever else we could think
> off, on sunny days while the solar panels were also charging ... still no
> go for the Maytag.
>
>
> So the bottom line seems to be the INVERTER. Our 3000 watt inverter
> just won't do it. We got a small Toshiba washer now that runs
> fine.
>
>
> We also can't run our 1/2 hp water pump for the house water off the
> inverter unless we repeatedly try and eventually the pump will come on
> before the inverter overloads. We obviously only do that in
> emergencies when the generator won't run.
>
>
> We have a little 400 watt electric mixer I got from Harbor Freight years
> ago thinking we might use it for small jobs. We used it to
> "clean" caliche rocks and used the clay / caliche to improve
> the adobe mix on days when the batteries were full. Only had to run
> it a few minutes at a time and then we let the rocks soak some
> more.
>
>
> Last fall I put some shredded paper in the mixer for some papercrete
> testing but it got cold and well, it still looks like shredded paper and
> it would take FOREVER to build anything with that mixer. Maybe if
> we had some blades welded on it would work better.
>
>
> The stucco guy had a full sized mixer he ran of a little generator all
> day long, but gas isn't cheap these days.
>
>
> I don't know about RPMs and torque, but we've learned some hard lessons
> with the washers and obviously STARTING any mixer filled with paper or
> worse, cardboard, is going to be the tough part.
>
>
> Anyone off grid SHOULD have plenty of extra power on sunny afternoons and
> it's not like we need a lot quickly, but we'll start looking for a
> trailer as Terry has. Not ideal here either since the roads
> SUCK, but it seems like still the best option.
>
>
> Christine
>
>
>
>
> At 05:40 PM 3/17/2012, you wrote:
>
>
>
>
> You make an important point, but that point only applies if someone needs
> to make a large amount of papercrete quickly.
>
>
> The size of the power source needed to charge a battery pack is mostly
> related to how fast you need to charge it. I'll make a couple of extreme
> examples to illustrate my point.
>
>
> You used the example of solar, which is not necessarily the cheapest
> alternative power source for an off grid situation, but I'm comfortable
> exploring that option.
>
>
> Let's assume that one panel will charge one battery given one full sunny
> day. (I want to avoid getting into a discussion over what specific size
> or type of panel is best or what type of battery, charge controller...
> blah blah blah. While that data can be important in designing a solar
> electric system it is not the topic we are discussing. I'm trying to keep
> things simple.) If one panel can charge one battery in one day. 8 panels
> should be able to charge 8 batteries in one day. Or one panel should be
> able to charge 8 batteries in 8 days.
>
>
> If someone is willing to wait 8 days for batteries to charge back up,
> then one solar panel can be adequate to charge an 8 battery pack. This
> assumes 8 straight days of sunshine. My point is that if someone is
> willing to be patient and wait for the power to accumulate in the
> batteries, a smaller power source to charge them can be used.
>
>
> You are factually incorrect about the torque output of an electric motor
> at zero RPM. A DC motor can exert large forces on it's shaft even if the
> load connected to the motor is so large that the motor cannot turn it and
> stalls the motor. No internal combustion engine can do that. When an
> engine stalls, it stops producing any power or any torque. Remember, John
> Wayland's Drag Racer has no transmission. It has no clutch. The motor is
> directly attached to the drive shaft. His accellerator either applies
> elctricity to the motor to make the wheel's go, or it doesn't. The car
> wouldn't be able to get going from a standing stop if the motor had zero
> torque at zero RPM. The opposite is the case. The motor can exert
> etraordinary torque at zero RPM. That is exactly why John Wayland's White
> Zombie Dragster can consistently beat internal combuston powered cars in
> short sprints.
>
>
> You don't have to take my word for it. Trust the brainiacs at MIT.
>
>
> http://lancet.mit.edu/motors/motors4.html#2.007ts
>
>
> I could quote 100's of other sources on the internet if you want me
> to.
>
>
> I assure you that whatever torque your diesel engine can provide at it's
> best, that can easily be overpowered by a DC Electric motor properly
> powered.
>
>
> Where an internal combustion engine has a huge advantage over an electric
> motor is in endurance and rapid replacement of energy reserves in the
> energy storage device. An electric motor needs it's batteries recharged
> when energy reservs run low, and that typically takes significantly
> longer than refilling a fuel tank. You won't see John Wayland trying to
> race his Datsun in a 1000 mile race for this reason (and several others.)
> His car is fantastic in short sprints. It is a Drag Racer, not an
> endurance racer.
>
>
> I want to repeat the points I was making when I began discussing the
> possibility of an elecric mixer a long way back in this thread, perhaps
> wording them better. Each type of mixer can have its advantages and its
> disadvantages. Some mixers are great in certain situations but not
> others. It is up to each individual builder to decide what will work best
> for their own situation. While a tow mixer is a very nice design, it is
> not always the best for every situation.
>
>
> A tow mixer, for example, is particularly great for pouring papercrete
> blocks. Being able to tow the mixer directly over the top of the forms
> laid on the ground to fill them and letting gravity do the rest makes a
> lot of sense. I cannot think of a more simple way to accomplish that
> task. Simple usually is best. However, as you pointed out in a previous
> post in this thread, making blocks, turning drying, stacking, the
> mortaring them into walls is a very large investment in manual labor. The
> whole ordeal of building with papercrete blocks is a complex operation of
> many steps. You handle the papercrete multiple times by hand. It's
> probably the single most labor intensive form of papercrete construction.
> Not for the weak of heart as you pointed out.
>
>
> If someone is not making blocks, but wants to slipform or pour papercrete
> into forms the full height of the wall, a tow mixer loses that fight with
> gravity that it takes advantage of when pouring blocks on the ground. One
> can resort to more manual labor to haul buckets of slurry up to the form,
> but there is no particular advantage to getting your mix from a tow mixer
> vs any other mixer in that situation. Bucket shlepping is hard manual
> labor. If someone can use a trash pump to pump the slurry to the forms,
> that makes a huge difference, but again the trash pump doesn't care
> whether the slurry is getting pumped from a tow mixer or another type of
> mixer.
>
>
> I would rather invest my time and effort into building a machine that can
> reduce the amount of manual labor I have to expend to a minimum, as well
> as minimize the amount of money I spend on building and powering it. I
> want to do more with less. More building with less work, less money, less
> energy, less wasted effort, less injuries, less stress.
>
>
> It's not that I'm afraid of hard work. I work hard frequently, but I'm no
> masochist. If I can find an easier way that makes sense, I won't torture
> myself just for the heck of it, I'll be all over the easier method. That
> doesn't mean I think those that build with blocks are wrong or are
> masochists. They are doing what works best for them, I respect that. I
> applaud their efforts and root them on.
>
>
> I simply have a desire to push the boundaries of what is possible. I want
> to always work to improve what we do and how we do it with papercrete.
> That's why this group was created.
>
>
> If I can create a new mixer and a new technique for construction that
> might work well for myself and maybe some other builders, I will consider
> my efforts a great success. If I fail, but I learn something, and share
> my failure with everyone else, and they learn something, that too will be
> a success, albeit not as big of a success. If I try and fail, and that
> entertains someone so that they can say, "I told you so," I'm
> okay with that too. I'm a big boy. I can handle it. Perhaps what I share
> will inspire someone to an even better idea and come up with something
> completely different that works better than anyone has imagined. I would
> love that too.
>
>
> Compounding a failure by not learning from it is the worst thing we can
> do on Papercreters. We should be celebrating those willing to admit their
> mistakes and share them with us, so we all can learn how to avoid the
> same mistakes. I may turn out to be the biggest failure on the group. If
> everyone learns from it, then at least my efforts will be good for
> SOMETHING.
>
>
> --- In
>
> papercreters@yahoogroups.com, Donald Miller <donald1miller@>
> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Jay, you won't get any argument from me about the torque output of a
> series wound DC motor. The problem with using this in an off grid
> situation is providing the power to run it. These motors take a lot of
> current to operate and therein lies the problem. To provide the power to
> run these motors would require a solar panel array and battery bank of
> such size that the cost to purchase said panels and batteries would be
> terribly cost prohibitive. And you are somwhat confused on the torque
> output of diesel engines. One of their strong points, at least in a small
> truck, is that they deliver a lot of torque at a low rpm. My Dodge 4X4
> 3/4 ton pickup runs at 1700 rpms at 65 miles per hour. And, true, a
> diesel engine puts out zero torque at zero rpm, but so too does the
> electric motor. If the motor isn't turning it can't put out any torque.
> My tow mixer is on the small side, 160 gallon tank and let me tell you
> takes a lot more than "measly" power to operate it.
>
> > Even a tow/stationary mixer made from a 55 gallon barrel would
> require a large motor to operate it and that large motor is going to
> require a lot of DC current to run on.
>
> >
>