| Pages:
1
2
3 |
IrC
International Hazard
Posts: 2710
Registered: 7-3-2005
Location: Eureka
Member Is Offline
Mood: Discovering
|
|
Please do not mention Soylent Green! Only saw it once, around 1974. Stopped at jack in the box and bought dinner, then home to relax. Hours later
(watching you guessed it, can't say it), I realized I was becoming violently, horribly ill. Ended up being E-coli and almost took my life. Since then
just thinking about that damn movie makes me want to puke. Lucky for you the TV dinner I just ate only costs a buck so the bill I will mail you will
not be too bad.
Hopefully back to my thread now. So, not_important , the point is it could work, but would need a system to clean exhaust. No good for auto but
possibly a fixed power generating plant, say a 10 or 20 KW system for home.
|
|
|
not_important
International Hazard
Posts: 3873
Registered: 21-7-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by IrC
... So, not_important , the point is it could work, but would need a system to clean exhaust. No good for auto but possibly a fixed power generating
plant, say a 10 or 20 KW system for home. |
It could, but the best efficiency I've seen for microturbines of that size is maybe 25%; if you live in an area with a lot of heating needs CHP could
raise the overall efficiency of a home unit.
A combined cycle coal gasification plant has an efficiency of 45 to 55 percent, high with CHP. SOFC and MCFC in combined cycle plants run 60 to 80
percent, maybe higher; the molten carbonate fuel cells can directly use coal.
So you can have your home system with a 20 to 25 percent efficiency of turning fuel into power, or you can get your power from the grid with 2 or 3
times the efficiency of conversion. Then don't forget if you're using coal you'd have to pay to have it delivered to your house, where a power plant
is a bulk destination that could be served by rail ( 1/5 the energy consumption of trucks) just as a coal distribution hub would be. Which of those
two choices would likely give you cheaper power?
|
|
|
IrC
International Hazard
Posts: 2710
Registered: 7-3-2005
Location: Eureka
Member Is Offline
Mood: Discovering
|
|
I imagine when power gets even more expensive some of these negatives vanish? If your electric bill is 500/month or higher this provides incentive,
and this is already a realistic figure for an all electric home. Some who live near a railway which delivers power plant coal may make deals, if you
drive a pickup 2 miles to load a bed full of coal cheaply it gets better. Believe it or not I live near just such a circumstance. I suppose however we
are deviating from the auto question, does not bother me much so long as alternative energy is the thread it is not a bad discussion. Just so long as
we keep green or yellow food off the table (to pun or not to pun?).
|
|
|
not_important
International Hazard
Posts: 3873
Registered: 21-7-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I think the total market fitting your example is fairly small, especially considering how likely a train is to stop to drop off a ton or three of coal
for one person. Also, don't forget you have roughly 5% of the mass of the coal left as ash and scrubbed sulfur to dispose of, sh that generally has
enough toxics in it to rate as hazardous. That ash is one reason coal or coke is an unlikely fuel for vehicles, especially smaller ones.
I'm not sure I fully understood you point there, though. If the cost of power goes up because of rising fuel prices, cheaper electricity from large
CGCC plants would seem to be more desirable that power at twice the cost from a home unit, and less hassle as well - no coal deliveries, especially by
yourself, no waste to haul away. And wind power will place somewhat of a cap on electricity prices, given that it is a cheap as coal power right now
much of an increase in coal prices would spur development of more wind farms.
As for vehicles, for short range driving such as at least half of the typical days driving, current electric vehicle technology would satisfy the
actual needs of the people (as opposed to the imaginary needs pumped into their skulls by advertising, causing someone whose closest contact with
wilderness is a theme park to believe they need a enormous vehicle that can climb mountains for their daily 15 miles of driving on suburban streets).
Serial hybrids would double to triple the mileage for those who drive more and for trucks, combined with the aforementioned BEVs this would reduce
petroleum consumption by the US by 2/3 or more. As it is the largest consumer of petroleum and most of it goes into fuels, it would seem such a
reduction would have measurable impact on petroleum prices.
|
|
|
gregxy
Hazard to Others
Posts: 421
Registered: 26-5-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I remember that Wired magazine had an excellent article showing how different energy technologies become more attractive as the cost of oil increase.
Here in Silicon Valley we have been seeing a massive increase in private funding for solar cell technologies over the past few years. So it looks
like we are nearing the "inflection point" for solar to take off.
Here is an article in Scientific American:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand-plan
Personally I like the idea of a hybred car with batteries that
could power it without the gas engine for about 40 miles.
That way most people could charge it over night and do most of their driving "gas free". But the capability would still be there for longer trips.
I calculated that if I covered my roof with solar panels I could be energy independent. The cost would be about $60K which is not bad considering the
price of real estate in CA, plus for me, the system would pay for itself in about 10 years.
To get back to the "water burning car", I think you would get more benefit out of injecting water into the fuel/air mix than splitting the water into
H and O. When the water evaporates it cools the fuel/air mix allowing you to get more moles into the combustion chamber. This will increase the power,
but I don't know about the efficiency.
Another problem with the "water car thing" is that with the power that you can get from your cars electrical system, if you drive around all day you
might electrolyze a whole ounce of water, this is not going to be enough to make any differece.
|
|
|
watson.fawkes
International Hazard
Posts: 2793
Registered: 16-8-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I feel a need to mention the Fischer-Tropsch process, which can be used as a coal conversion mechanism to liquid hydrocarbon fuels.
|
|
|
not_important
International Hazard
Posts: 3873
Registered: 21-7-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Fischer-Tropsch has some problems. About 1,8 to 2,0 grams of carbon in end up as CO2 for every gram of hydrocarbon produced. So only 1/3 to 1/4 of
the coal, depending on type of coal, ends up as hydrocarbons; the rest of the coal ends up as CO2, H2O, ash, sulfur compounds, and so on. Then
there's the issue with the distribution of hydrocarbon size, reducing the amount of C1-C3 hydrocarbons formed results in increased formation of long
chains that will need to be cracked back to shorter fuel grade chains; this takes further energy input.
That's not great energy efficiency, below making electricity in power plants. Given the relative efficiencies of IC engine and electrics the
combination of Fischer-Tropsch & IC engine is a loser in terms of energy input.; that also means that the relative cost per mile traveled will be
higher for FT-IC than pure electric.
I believe that the production of methanol or dimethyl ether from coal has a better utilization of carbon and energy than Fischer-Tropsch fuels do.
|
|
|
watson.fawkes
International Hazard
Posts: 2793
Registered: 16-8-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by not_important
Fischer-Tropsch has some problems. |
Oh, I wasn't advocating it exactly, but it was relevant to the
discussion.
As to it's actual economic effect, it's not so much the carbon efficiency that matters, it's the ratio of coal prices to oil prices. And this is all
dependent on the cost of replacing an installed base of internal combustion engines with particular fuel requirements. So while it's not a long term
solution, it may have some relevance as a transitional one.
Mind you, I have no good idea what these economic numbers are. What I do know is that at the ideal margin (i.e. zero fixed costs incurred), it's
worthwhile to extract more value out of an installed base. Whether F-T is close enough to that ideal situation, I just don't know.
|
|
|
solo
International Hazard
Posts: 3975
Registered: 9-12-2002
Location: Estados Unidos de La Republica Mexicana
Member Is Offline
Mood: ....getting old and drowning in a sea of knowledge
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by solo
How about adding a component alcohol such that it carries H2 and is released when the alcohol ignites at temps of 75-80C ,hence releasing the hydrogen
and and it's energy payload........i know it's a simplistic idea but an idea to maybe improve on or spark a better one.................solo
|
Ammonium formate, NH4HCO2, is the ammonium salt of formic acid. It is a colorless, hygroscopic, crystalline solid. Pure ammonium formate decomposes
into formamide and water when heated, and this is its primary use in industry. Formic acid can also be obtained by reacting ammonium formate with a
dilute acid, and since ammonium formate is also produced from formic acid, it can serve as a way of storing formic acid.
Ammonium formate can also be used in palladium on carbon reduction of functional groups. In the presence of Pd/C, Ammonium formate decomposes to
hydrogen, carbon dioxide, and ammonia. This hydrogen gas is absorbed onto the surface of the palladium metal, where it can react with various
functional groups. For example, alkenes can be reduced to alkanes, or formaldehyde to methanol. Activated single bonds to heteroatoms can also be
replaced by hydrogens (hydrogenolysis).
It's better to die on your feet, than live on your knees....Emiliano Zapata.
|
|
|
not_important
International Hazard
Posts: 3873
Registered: 21-7-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: | | , it's the ratio of coal prices to oil prices. |
Which was what I was getting at. If the cost per tonne of coal is more than 1/3 the cost of oil then it's not economic for any length of time. 1
tonne of crude oil = 7.3 barrels, see http://www.eppo.go.th/ref/UNIT-OIL.html and the actual numbers would need adjustment for the amount of fuel per unit of crude as well as the
exact F.T. yields but that 1:3 ratio gives a feel.
There's numbers on the change-out rate of automobiles, as that relates to yearly sales of new ones. Currently in the U.S. the average age of an
automobile is 9.2 years, while that of light trucks (including SUV, vans, and other vehicles so labeled to escape mileage requirements) is about 8
years. So there is also the issue if enough coal production and Fischer-Tropsch plants could be brought online to be significant before fleet
chance-out shifts the equations. Remember that going to serial hybrids can reduce demand for petroleum fuels by 2/3, without requiring changes to the
fuel processing and distribution infrastructure; and the use as fuel is by far the largest demand for petroleum in the US.
|
|
|
franklyn
International Hazard
Posts: 3026
Registered: 30-5-2006
Location: Da Big Apple
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
On the fringe
Carbon and water to fuel ( formaldehyde or water gas ? ) using a welding current
http://www.blazelabs.com/n-aquagen.asp
http://www.blazelabs.com/n-newfuel.asp
Apparently the partial combustion of carbon aids in conversion of electricity to fuel
reducing the power requirement.
.
|
|
|
not_important
International Hazard
Posts: 3873
Registered: 21-7-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Surprise, surprise. They are doing the water gas reaction
C + H2O + heat => CO + H2
perhaps mixed with electrolysis. There's no "reduction in power requirement", the carbon is supplying additional chemical energy.
In the 19th century this reaction was done by alternating feeds of air and steam over coke, air until the coke was hot enough, steam until it had
cooled enough for the reaction to be too slow. Alternatively a mixture of air and steam could be passed over coke or coal, but the gases would be
diluted with nitrogen. Nowadays this could be accomplished using ceramic tubes based on ZrO2 or other compositions that allow oxygen to diffuse
through them when hot. Blow air into the tubes, the O2 that diffuses through is mixed with steam and passed over coke, the resulting mix heats the
air on its way to the diffusion tubes. The hot N2 enriched air is used to preheat the incoming air and steam. The resulting gas is a mix of CO, H2,
CO2, H2O, and a little N2. Condensing out the water also scrubs out much of the CO2, both can be feed back to the reaction chamber ( CO2 + C <=>
2 CO ).
Blaze Labs is sort of what you'd get from someone who learned science from Silver Age comicbooks, then dropped acid and read a biography of Tesla.
|
|
|
franklyn
International Hazard
Posts: 3026
Registered: 30-5-2006
Location: Da Big Apple
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by not_important
Blaze Labs is sort of what you'd get from someone who learned science from Silver Age comicbooks,
then dropped acid and read a biography of Tesla. |
Most novel ideas come from dreamers who don't sit on their hands.
I'll take what I can get, I found no other reference sources for the patents cited.
What was then called the U.S. Department of Energy ( DOE ) had investigated processing coal
to make it cleaner for fuel applications
http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/proceedings/97/97cl/jha...
and had sponsored much research into it's eventual use in engines
http://www.ntis.gov/search/product.aspx?ABBR=DE94000023
The American Society of Mechanical Engineers was heavily involved
http://catalog.asme.org/ConferencePublications/PrintBook/198...
The curious thing is that a coal water slurry fuel engine had been developed and patented
more than fifteen years ago by the Department of Energy.
When the patent expires it will no longer be subject to licensing and cannot be suppressed
Coal water slurry fuel internal combustion engine and method for operating same
US patent 5163385 - see attachment
I'm not suggesting conspiracy, but makes me think, what were they thinking
.
Attachment: US pat 5163385.pdf (602kB)
This file has been downloaded 639 times
|
|
|
not_important
International Hazard
Posts: 3873
Registered: 21-7-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
The curious thing is that the First International Conference on MHD Power was held in Newcastle on Tyne (coals to Newcastle) in 1962. A number of
research models were built in the 1960s. Later in the 1980s the governments in the US, Japan, USSR, Australia, and China all had programs for coal
fired MHD generators. Yet today there are no large coal fired MHD generating plants in operation. What were they thinking?
What they were thinking is normally referred to as "research", which does not always lead to practical applications. MHD ran into problems with the
erosive effects of slag among other things. And there are many patents out there that never lead to products, they were done in hopes that later
research would result in improvements giving practical forms of the invention, the patent was to stake out the territory in case someone else came
along with the improvement.
Indeed such research often ends up concluding "it ain't worth doing" or "major improvements in supporting technologies are needed" without there being
any known way to obtain those improvements. Read the reports, where they were more than some focused data collection like the one you reference, the
problems of abrasion and slag show up constantly.
It hardly seems to be an attempt to thwart a technology, else why would they have spent so much on it?
Total Federal energy-related research spending provided between 1950 and 2003, in billions of dollars
Nuclear $60.6
Coal $27.3
Solar $16.4
Oil $6.7
Gas $5.6
Geothermal $ 2.9
Hydro $1.2
Coal was second to oil in terms of tax write-downs for depletion as well.
I believe that you are confusing research into potentially interesting technology, with actual development of useful devices based on that technology.
The problems with the use of coal, especially in small distributed applications, have already been mentioned. China is an example of the results of
those problems whrn the solutions applicable to centralised use are not applied.
And while Blaze Labs may not be sitting on their hands, they are sitting on their brains; else they'd not ignored a reaction known for a century and a
half and used industrially for almost as long, but instead come up with explanations that contradict conventional chemistry and physics.
|
|
|
IrC
International Hazard
Posts: 2710
Registered: 7-3-2005
Location: Eureka
Member Is Offline
Mood: Discovering
|
|
I am glad this thread is providing this much discussion. I should have named it alternative (butt not quack) energy, to broaden it to cover everything
on the subject and not be confined to just motor vehicles. I think the way it is going is broader in concepts and therefore better. I have noticed
over several years there seems to me to be too much emphasis on keeping a thread very narrow and as such I have often thought that this curtails much
discussion. In my mind this is due to ideas giving rise to other ideas and I like this better, of course not when it runs into chaos (which is why
there is emphasis on keeping topics narrowly confined here). I think the way the thread is going is even better than I started it, and it is helpful
to read all the ideas which have been given here.
| Quote: | Originally posted by franklyn
Not to turn this thread into a political diatribe, but some off topic non-technical
reality is called for here. Can a small startup sell an idea to the gullible and unwary,
sure but that's as far as it goes. Is this a process or method that will be financed
by a bank ? If the answer is no then it will not become commercialized. Money can
be equated to stores of energy , if the balance sheet is red , the idea is bankrupt.
. |
I have to say I have been reading Don Lancaster's writings since before many of you were born and do not doubt he has a great deal of very valid
scientific thought to offer. However I do not think we know all there is to know about creation meaning there are likely many new ideas which could
alter the cold hard realities he gives, especially in his hydrogen as fuel page. Using the train of thought in the above quote I have to wonder about
the money thing. Ok, for some reason I am seeing the electrolysis ads on more commercial sites and wonder if it was all false how do they survive and
why would so many otherwise legitimate entities allow these ads on their sites. We can still chalk this to ignorance on their part in not
understanding all the down sides we all know so well. I ask myself however why did the army spend so much money having just this technology installed
in so many Hummers? If this money idea is non refutable and the military would only spend it upon real proof of real gains then what new science do
they know about which would nullify Lancasters clear math disproving the entire subject.
I just have to think there is some form of merit in the science here and if so can we learn it and can we improve it? If for no other reason than my
previously stated thought that we are in a downward spiral on the oil and energy front and had better come up with working, viable alternatives and we
had better be doing it even faster than we may yet see the need. No doubt global conflicts may emerge from the oil crises and the way things look
right now this is on the more likely than not side of the equation!
In any case thank you all for so much good discussion in this thread and I hope it keeps going strong.
|
|
|
franklyn
International Hazard
Posts: 3026
Registered: 30-5-2006
Location: Da Big Apple
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by not_important
There's no "reduction in power requirement", the carbon is supplying additional chemical energy.
" but instead come up with explanations that contradict conventional chemistry and physics " |
This is just semantics
Ordinarily for direct conversion of X amount of power you derive Y amount of fuel
The partial combustion of carbon used, additionally contributes Z amount of fuel
In this process X amount of power consumed is producing Y + Z fuel , X = Y + Z
But X energy DOES NOT EQUAL Y + Z energy
so the amount of power consumed to produce Y amount of fuel is reduced to X - Z
This does not contradict chemistry nor physics.
So called psuedo science is often just poorly expressed in the accepted academic standard
not that there is anything faulty in the logic. Rather snobish and blind to unseen possibilities.
.
|
|
|
not_important
International Hazard
Posts: 3873
Registered: 21-7-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Poorly expressed would seem to be the operative term here.
Let's look at what they say. First off, they explicitly note that they are not claiming over-unity operation, a point in their favor.
They describe the process as being:
| Quote: | | To make COH2 - a low dc voltage in the range 30 to 50v at high current is used to produce an electric arc which tunnels through water between the tips
of common carbon electrodes. The 5,000 to 7,000 degrees F heat from the arc dissociates nearby water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen atoms. Carbon
atoms break loose from the positive electrode and form bonds in this high energy plasma soup. The resulting COH2 molecules cool and bubble up to the
surface in the surrounding water where they are collected and ready for combustion. |
A bit later they state:
| Quote: | | Aquafuel has been tested & confirmed to require less energy to release the gas than as predicted by Faraday's Law of electrolysis, which states
that one equivalent weight of a substance is produced at each electrode during the passage of 96,487 coulombs of charge through an electrolytic cell.
The underlying "inexplicable laws" are based on element transmutations which take place at the molecular level between carbon, oxygen nuclei and
hydrogen ones. |
So first they describe a thermal operation, "5000 to 7000 F", and then discuss the effectiveness of this operation in terms of electrolysis. WTF?
I would have been more impressed had they attempted placing one of the carbon rods in water and ran enough current through it to heat it to 1000 to
1500 C, with no arcing or electrolytic flow. I would expect the formation of their gas mixture in this case as well.
A bit later
| Quote: | | According to a gas analysis performed by NASA, Hydrogen (~46%), carbon monoxide (~38%), and carbon dioxide (~9%) are the dominant atomic components in
AquaFuel before combustion. This result is however contradicted by the fact that permeability tests on this gas disproves the presence of 46%
Hydrogen. A balloon of Hydrogen leaked to 10% its diameter within 2 hours, whilst the same balloon leaks to the same percentage, only after 3 to 6
months! Also, the presence of 46% free hydrogen would result in a high percentage of Nitrogen oxide in the exhaust, which was not the case. Balloons
filled with this fuel also showed an anomalous attraction by metal beams. Other gases reported by NASA include: Ethylene, Ethane, Acetylene, Oxygen,
Nitrogen, and Methane. Nitrogen content is also in contradiction with the evidence that much Nitrogen in the mix would render the fuel a cold burner.
|
Now they have a mix that is at least 84% combustible gases, and 93% consisting of three gases. As a maximum the remainder has to be less than 7% N2.
If that list of other gases was in descending amount order then around 1% N2 would be a maximum, hardly enough to "render the fuel a cold burner" but
even several times that would not do so - 'wood gas' has much more N2 in it ( http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/T0512E/T0512e09.htm ). Acetylene in particular and ethylene would make the fuel 'hotter'.
The claim that the given percentage of H2 would result in a high percentage of NOx ignores the CO content. Water gas is not know as a high combustion
temperature fuel, there are many decades of experience with it and NOx production is not mentioned as being a problem.
They question the professional gas analysis, yet make no effort to perform one themselves. A fairly simple apparatus would allow the determination of
CO2, CO, general hydrocarbons, and H2. A sample taken for IR analysis would indicate the presence of much C-H bonds, and would certainly show if
there was H2C=O .
If the 'CH2O' gas produced were mostly formaldehyde its smell would be obvious, as well. So we're left with a gas that "can't have (much) H2 in it",
per the balloon experiment, and doesn't seem likely to have true CH2O in it, from lack of various properties, and so becomes some mysterious gas COH2
with that general formula or ratio of elements but being something other than the aforementioned compounds.
|
|
|
franklyn
International Hazard
Posts: 3026
Registered: 30-5-2006
Location: Da Big Apple
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Experiments to determine the origin of the start of life on earth, were performed
with what is supposed was the constitution of the early earth atmosphere. The
premise is that lightning would produce organic molecules, such as amino acids.
The simpler mix of only carbon hydrogen nitrogen and oxygen in the water fuel
device can nevertheless produce exotic molecules I'm sure. Fullerene is produced
in a vacuum from arcing carbon rods alone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment
.
|
|
|
IrC
International Hazard
Posts: 2710
Registered: 7-3-2005
Location: Eureka
Member Is Offline
Mood: Discovering
|
|
While not fuel related your link showed me something I had never thought about. If racemic mixtures form then life is next to impossible without a
creator to remove all the right handed amino acids? Furthermore with O2 present again life would not form. So I have to wonder about all those
scientists who think belief in a creator is silly (Asimov). It would seem now I am supposed to believe life evolved from methane to oxygen breathing
after it sparked to life. More fuel for the creationists? I have long known that many of the people I meet if they formed in the method taught must
have started with very small sparks.
I know, unrelated to my thread but hey it was your link and besides it's interesting.
|
|
|
not_important
International Hazard
Posts: 3873
Registered: 21-7-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
The geological evidence is that the Hadean and Archean atmospheres where basically anoxic except for traces of O2 and O3 generated by UV
disassociation of water vapour. The transition to a oxidising atmosphere occurred around the Archean-Proterozoic boundary and is marked by extensive
banded iron formations and a change in some minerals in sedimentary formations, some elements have states with higher solubilities under reducing
conditions and others under oxidising conditions.
None of that life was "methane breathing", nor can single celled organisms properly be said to breath. Oxygen was a waste product from
photosynthesis, as is sulfur, hydrogen, and low valency metal ions; purple and green sulfur bacteria and a few cyanobacteria among others can make S,
others oxidise NH3 to NO2(-) and NO3(-), H2S or S to SO4(-2), Fe(II) to Fe(III), and so on.
for starters http://www.splammo.net/bact102/102pnsb.html and links therein
There are a number of ways early life may have obtained its handedness, including several that do not depend on chiral minerals.
http://www.aao.gov.au/AAO/AAO/local/www/jab/chirality_aa.pdf
http://www.rsc.org/ej/CC/2000/a908300f.pdf
.
[Edited on 10-9-2008 by not_important]
|
|
|
IrC
International Hazard
Posts: 2710
Registered: 7-3-2005
Location: Eureka
Member Is Offline
Mood: Discovering
|
|
Seems the thread went from cars to life and ended. Finding a bit more useful information I thought it should be posted.
Hydrogen Generator
Hydrogen Generator, PWM Circuit
I find much in the links of use. When I moved to a state with mandated alcohol my mileage went from 21 MPG to 14 MPG! After much study the false
reading the O2 sensor was giving the computer was the problem and it appears I may be able to make use of some of this including the improved circuit
even if hydrogen is not the goal. The false lean information the alcohol was providing the computer was killing my mileage and the power produced. Do
not know for sure yet but I will be playing with the idea provided someone here will volunteer to be my ride if I blow the engine. In any case here is
a little more useful information to anyone interested in the subject. Also the guy's site has a lot of very well designed circuit projects you can
play with.
Hobby Projects to Build, That Work
|
|
|
franklyn
International Hazard
Posts: 3026
Registered: 30-5-2006
Location: Da Big Apple
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
While adjusting carburation is necessary to run alchohol, you must expect your
mileage will either be less or else you will develop less power according to the
reduced heat value of the fuel.
.
|
|
|
IrC
International Hazard
Posts: 2710
Registered: 7-3-2005
Location: Eureka
Member Is Offline
Mood: Discovering
|
|
True that was a percentage of the loss, but the main loss was being caused by the excess O2 in the exhaust causing the computer to think it needs to
dump more fuel than needed. Kind of killing the fuel economy in two ways at once.
|
|
|
chief
National Hazard
Posts: 630
Registered: 19-7-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
An old idea of mine:
==> since liquid nitrogen is "cheaper than beer", and thereby as cheap as petroleum (comparable)
==>so will be liquid oxygen
And since the efficiency of a Thermodynamic engine rises with the temperature-difference, the efficiency would rise using higher
combustion-temperatures. Those could be achieved by having an oxygen-supply in the car, giving more oxygen, thereby less ballast-nitrogen, into the
combustion.
This, of course, would mainly work for engines, where the gasolin/whatever fuel is injected, because an oxygen/fuel-mixture probably couldn't be
compressed, and then ith would explode violently ...
But this way, the engine can reach much higher temperatrures, also increasing the usability of the exhaust for driving any afterstep-stirling-engines
etc. .
The optimum-injection -ratio of oxygen/fuel/air could be determine by the prices O2/air, with electronic injection and modern engines this should be
possible somehow easy ...
Also: If less N2 is in the engine, also maybe the NOx-production wouldn't increase that much, even at the higher temperatures ..., and with clean
O2-fuel-burning the engines could be smaller ...
Maybe the burning would have to be distributed over the several cyloinders, connecting them in series instead of parallel, as today:
Each cylinder would get a bit of fuel-injection and the exhaust of the previous cylinder, so the heat-buildup in 1 cylinder wouldn't be too high ..
If it's about making ewlectricity of coal at home:
==> When coal or wood anyhow serves for heating,
==> theprocess could be applied continuously, whole year long, and the heat could be stored in a basement-tank (100 cubic-metres)of H2O, well
isolated, for usage in winter. This also would be heated up solar-thermically.
==> another way of storing temperature would be to abuse the phase-change of Na2SO4 with water, at 32 [Cels]: This stores loads of heat, much more
thyan water, just only at that low temp.
Therefor the heating and the turbine-cycle might be adapted:
==> drivind the turbine close-cycled, with something that boils under pressure at the low 32[Cels]
==> having floor-heating, so the 32[Cels] would be useful ...
Of course at such a low reservoir-temp also the insulation of the reservoir would be more efficient, because of the lower temp-difference ...
[Edited on 13-10-2008 by chief]
|
|
|
franklyn
International Hazard
Posts: 3026
Registered: 30-5-2006
Location: Da Big Apple
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Proof tested
http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/how_to/4276846.ht...
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2
3 |
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
