View Full Version : Star Rotor Engine
Winston001
6th July 2006, 09:36
A post on the global warming thread about the future hydrogen economy reminded me of the StarRotor engine http://www.starrotor.com/Engine.htm.
This engine is a simple turbine. Easy to manufacture and capable of burning bio-fuels - methane, alcohol, etc. Much more efficent than internal combustion and with far less parts. http://engineeringnews.tamu.edu/news/1325
The hydrogen economy is unlikely to happen - at least in the popular form breathlessly talked about by ill-educated journalists. To get the hydrogen in the first place you have to dissociate it from oxygen (as in H2O). That takes electricity - which has to come from somewhere. So hydrogen power generation is a zero sum game. You can never get more out than what you had to put in at the beginning.
Plus hydrogen is highly volatile. Damned hard to move around and store. Basically, it is bloody dangerous stuff. Bio-fuels on the other hand can be made from plant waste. Bacteria do the work for us - no electricity needed.
cowpoos
6th July 2006, 09:43
cool and excuse to throw out more rubbish!!!!!
sAsLEX
6th July 2006, 09:45
Similar to http://www.quasiturbine.com/
and for explanations http://auto.howstuffworks.com/quasiturbine.htm
Pixie
6th July 2006, 10:43
It's an oil pump!
Winston001
6th July 2006, 14:07
It's an oil pump!
Well...........yes. And it burns petrol/kero/methane/propane/alcohol etc. Simple eh. Can be manufactured in third world countries and they can make their own fuel. The StarRotor might not be the complete answer but there are some clever engineers in the world and eventually we'll see a simple reliable engine arise.
Fooman
6th July 2006, 16:46
Hmmmm, I'm a bit dubious about some of the claims. It will probably work but not at the outputs and efficiencies claimed. The most efficient simple cycle gas turbines (i.e. still the Brayton cycle) are around 41% thermal efficiency (at combustion temperatures of ~1300°C - the higher the temperature, the more work out of the cycle). With an HRSG and steam turbine added, combined cycle gas turbines are at around 60% thermal efficiency - and this is only at large (300 MW) scale with everything being optimised for continously running at a certain speed.
I cannot see this engine running at anywhere near the temperatures and speeds of an axial flow turbine which are the main contributors to power output.
And this statements is rubbish:
"What are the expected torque characteristics of the StarRotor engine?
Theoretically, at a given compression ratio, the torque curve will be absolutely flat with rotational rate. In actuality, at low rational rates, the torque will be slightly reduced because of leakage. In contrast, the torque of Otto cycle engines is strongly affected by rotational speed."
The torque of an Otto cycle is a function of combustion efficiency and stroke only. Modern engine designs (espcially using turbocharging) give fairly flat torque curves. In fact, a torque curve is a measurement of engine efficiency versus engine speed.
FM
Fooman
6th July 2006, 17:04
The hydrogen economy is unlikely to happen - at least in the popular form breathlessly talked about by ill-educated journalists. To get the hydrogen in the first place you have to dissociate it from oxygen (as in H2O). That takes electricity - which has to come from somewhere. So hydrogen power generation is a zero sum game. You can never get more out than what you had to put in at the beginning.
Plus hydrogen is highly volatile. Damned hard to move around and store. Basically, it is bloody dangerous stuff. Bio-fuels on the other hand can be made from plant waste. Bacteria do the work for us - no electricity needed.
Actually the major source of hydrogen is from fossil fuels (mainly natural gas). Run the natural gas at a high enough temperature across a catalyst with steam and you get synthesis gas, a mix of hydrogen, carbon monoxide, steam, methane etc. It's used to make methanol, ammonia, petrol etc. And it is the major source of industrial hydrogen.
The reason why people like hydrogen is that it combusts very efficiently, and does not release carbon dioxide.
Years ago, I went to a lecture delivered by Willis Hawkins on hydrogen as a fuel. He was an aeronautical engineer for Lockheed for more than fifty years (he ended up being Kelly Johnsons boss). A lot of his work was done on hydrogen power aircraft and safety thereof. He stated, that for an explosion of the same magnitude, he would much rather be in a hydrogen fueled one rather than a hydrocarbon fueled one. Apparently the nature of the hydrogen/oxidiation reaction is such that there is much less damage from it (something to do with specific volumes of the reaction product and the effective radiant heat produced). Also, if hydrocarbons leak, they tend tend to pool, whereas hydrogen escapes, disperses or reacts quickly such that a small amount of combustion takes places continously rather than a big explosion.
FM
With regard to your opinion on the Hydrogen economy being a farce.
You're right that you have to put energy in to make the Hydrogen. This is a simple fact of life. Bio fuels actually take a fair bit of energy to make too. It's just solar energy, and energy used in the manufacture, and transportation.
But the reason why they are in essence the same, is that they are both just methods for storing energy. The beauty with Hydrogen, is that it is clean to make, and clean to burn, and there is a shitload of energy stored in a small amount of chemical.
It's just a matter of getting enough energy to make Hydrogen. Where will we get it from? Massive solar/wind plants? Nuclear power (not my first option because it's not renewable)? More Hydro? Wave/Tidal generators? There is a huge amount of energy that falls on our rooftops every day that could be converted directly into Hydrogen chemical energy.
I believe that solar generation will become cheaper and cheaper, and eventually all roofcladding will be interlinked solarpanels. Combined with technological advances in eletrolysers (whatever the things are called that convert water and energy into Hydrogen), everyone will have their own way to make Hydrogen which they can then inject into their vehicles. With R 'n' D this is definitely the most plausible future that I can see. Still if you are thinking solar panels on roofs won't be enough, you are probably right, but there is shitloads of energy out there, and as long as the human population doesn't keep shooting up, there is plenty of energy to convert to Hydrogen. Just a matter of being smart about harnessing it.
I like the idea of having a whole lot of mirrors in a desert that follow the sun reflecting light to a tower that could have a whole lot of water in it that would boil due to the reflected light, and would drive steam turbines. Instead of putting the electricity into lines and feeding it to cities. You convert the energy produced straight into Hydrogen, to avoid losses down power lines... Hydrogen economy ... I love the idea. Now, it's just going to require the peeps with the money to make it happen.
P.S. There are tonnes of energy generation ideas out there. Now let's make a few happen.
Just did a bit of looking up on the net about my cool idea about reflected light energy powering steam turbines. Here's a good article:
http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/app/research/solar/clfr.html
"To give a sense to proportion, the CLFR technology, working with standard steam turbine and generator sets, could satisfy the entire electrical usage of Australia with only 1000 km2 of such land. There exist many such suitable sites around the world."
Just shows, there's shitloads of solar energy that we know how to tap, just haven't got round to it yet. Aussie has the potential to generate huge amounts of hydrogen going by this article.
Winston001
6th July 2006, 17:36
I like the idea of having a whole lot of mirrors in a desert that follow the sun reflecting light to a tower that could have a whole lot of water in it that would boil due to the reflected light, and would drive steam turbines. Instead of putting the electricity into lines and feeding it to cities. You convert the energy produced straight into Hydrogen, to avoid losses down power lines... Hydrogen economy ... I love the idea. Now, it's just going to require the peeps with the money to make it happen.
P.S. There are tonnes of energy generation ideas out there. Now let's make a few happen.
Interesting stuff. An even better way is to use space mirrors which are in geosychronous orbit. Beam concentrated light down to drive the turbines.
Another point, conventional piston and rotary engines are able to run on Hydrogen if they are designed for it. All a combustion engine needs is a decent mix of oxygen and a fuel source, and then on cue of a spark (preferably) it explodes forcing a piston down, or a rotor around. It's just a matter of being able to control the release of fuel... With hydrogen you would probably need direct injection into the cylinder just before you intend it to explode, as it is highly volatile, and does not even need a spark if it is mixed with the correct amount of air.
Winston001
6th July 2006, 17:43
The world isn't running out of energy but we lack the technology to capture it at present. I'm thinking of fusion and even better - anti-matter reactors. That might be a long haul because producing antimatter is extremely energy intensive.
However there is an international project underway, based in France, to develop a fusion reactor. Could take 30 years but they'll get there. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER
Interesting stuff. An even better way is to use space mirrors which are in geosychronous orbit. Beam concentrated light down to drive the turbines.
Yeah, if set up correctly, you could probably use them as a devastating weapon too, if you could get big enough reflectors in space... Just concentrate heaps of sun energy on a small area... and you cause a lot of damage to said small area. I learnt this lesson at high school physics. My 6th form science teacher had a reasonably small concave mirror which he used to set a live tree trunk on fire. Just like using a magnifying glass pretty much, only reflecting instead of refracting.
But I don't think you need anything in space to get enough solar energy. There's plenty of it already landing on earth... did you check out that link I put in a couple of posts ago. You only need 1000km2 (that's only 32km by 32km of reflectors and collectors) of desert land to generate enough energy to power the whole of australia. We'll be rich... no need for oil anymore.
P.S. Thanks... I didn't know there was anything going on with fusion. I'll check it out.
Mr. Peanut
6th July 2006, 17:58
My father designed an engine like that, but died before the prototype was completed.
I still have the plans, the tricky bit was the tip seals on the rotor. He never wrote down how to do that.
The way it was designed, before one combustion cycle had finished, another started in the same chamber. Monster torque at low revs. :yes:
Fooman
6th July 2006, 22:26
I like the idea of having a whole lot of mirrors in a desert that follow the sun reflecting light to a tower that could have a whole lot of water in it that would boil due to the reflected light, and would drive steam turbines.
It's a good idea, only about 40 years too late. There's been operating plants (as proof of concept) in both California and France since the 1960's. You don't even need a steam turbine. Stirling motors will do. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_thermal_energy
http://www.imp.cnrs.fr/foursol/index_en.shtml
to start off with. There is all sorts of other ways of getting power from the sun - wind is driven by the sun's energy. Photovoltic cells are inefficient and have insufficient power density. Bio-fuel is stored (by plants) solar energy. As most people use about 50-70% of their power on heating (water and space), it is most efficient to use direct solar heating. You can generate energy by utilising the temperature difference between the top of the ocean (heated by the sun) and the water ~100m down.
There are two problems with all this sirt of stuff. The first is that solar power is cyclic - you need some way of storing it so you can use it while the sun is not there. Hydrogen is an obvious choice. Using solar/wind energy to pump water up to a reservoir to run back down through a dam is another. Growing straw to feed into coal fired plant is another (they do this in Denmark - 5% of the fuel going into a powerplant like Huntly is straw bales - but it potentially accelerates the corrosion of the boiler tubes).
The technology exists to do this. The major obstacle is that the technology is too expensive compared to burning coal. I went to a conference earlier this year on materials issues surrounding advanced energy systems. Because it was international, a lot of it was on fossil-fuel generation. Some stuff on geothermal/alternative (e.g. hydrogen) and gasification (turning coal into methane/hydrogen and storing the carbon dioxide). There is no real incentive to try cleaner sources of power - the most advanced coal fired powerstation in the US was built in the early 60's. It has great efficiency, it is just too expensive to build it again - high temperatures and pressures require more exotic materials which dramatically increase the capital cost.
And when power generators make their years profit on the highest demand days, and run at a loss on the median spot prices, as in NSW, there is no economic incentive to build new, cleaner plant, as you have removed your profit margin by increasing supply and reducing the high spot prices. That is the problem with running the power supply as an unregulated, free market business.
The adaptation of renewable, or clean technology (and I include new generation "pebble bed" nuclear reactors - much more suitable for NZ than the large, complex PWR-type reactors) relies on their being demand for such power. Such demand is increasing, but hand in hand with that must come the realisation that to adapt new power technologies is the fact that it will cost more.
I think this qualifies as a rant...:mega:
FM
Fooman
6th July 2006, 22:36
Another point, conventional piston and rotary engines are able to run on Hydrogen if they are designed for it. All a combustion engine needs is a decent mix of oxygen and a fuel source, and then on cue of a spark (preferably) it explodes forcing a piston down, or a rotor around. It's just a matter of being able to control the release of fuel... With hydrogen you would probably need direct injection into the cylinder just before you intend it to explode, as it is highly volatile, and does not even need a spark if it is mixed with the correct amount of air.
Indeed. When I was at the University of Canterbury, there was a project on using hydrogen in a wankel engine, as one of the drawbacks with a wankel motor (the long, narrow combustion chamber) was an advantage when it came to burning hydrogen. One of the major problems they had was pre-ignition of the hydrogen/air mix before it reached the combustion chamber - it was igniting on hot bits of the intake port. So they were trying direct injection. I don't know if they ever got it work.
FM
Yeah I agree with what you have said, in fact you are repeating some of the stuff that me and winstone have already said in our posts. I hope you read them all before getting annoyed about my "40 year" old idea. I agree that direct solar energy is way better than photovoltaic cells which is why I'm thinking that concentrating light to heat steam is a great idea, and is actually quite efficient compared to PV cells. Also, I think the reason why it hasn't taken off, is that it would take a fair bit of money to set up huge fields of these mirrors. But the beauty of it is, that once it's there all you have to do is keep them clean and they pump out huge amounts of energy.
I've thought about wind generation a lot, but it seems to be too much of a pain in the ass, and heat is such a concentrated form of energy. Although, it's probably better suited to NZ where we get a lot more wind than we do sunlight. But in a sun soaked climate like an aussie outback. You could use the reflected light steam heating way of generating to make heaps of Hydrogen, which is going to be as good as oil (but way more expensive per kg, cause it stores a lot more energy for the same weight) in the coming decades, and you don't even have to dig it up. I'm just looking at coming up with ideas for creating enough energy for a Hydrogen economy in the coming years. I think that burning ethanol is still releasing carbon into the atmosphere, which is what we were discussing reducing. And this solar concentration method works a treat. Have you had a read of this: http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/app/research/solar/clfr.html
It's a bloody cool read. Makes me think that this form of energy generation is a really sweet idea. If you want to have another rant. You could tell me why it's not a really good idea. Also, I could tell you reasons why I think that it is better than all the other forms of generation.
Cool, I came up with direct injection for hydrogen just while sitting at the computer thinking about how you could overcome the very likely pre-ignition problems that I knew that you would get from putting hydrogen in a combustion engine. There's no reason that direct injection shouldn't work, as long as you have the means to inject the right amount fast enough to match the engine speed.
Fooman
6th July 2006, 23:30
Yeah I agree with what you have said, in fact you are repeating some of the stuff that me and winstone have already said in our posts. I hope you read them all before getting annoyed about my "40 year" old idea.
Shit, was not getting annoyed, just pointing out it's such a good idea, it's been done! But the major problem with it is being able to match supply with demand.
I've thought about wind generation a lot, but it seems to be too much of a pain in the ass, and heat is such a concentrated form of energy. Although, it's probably better suited to NZ where we get a lot more wind than we do sunlight.
It is a pain in the arse, but so is everything else. Wind is good, if you combine it with a decent storage system, e.g. hydro. Otherwise the generation flucuations are a pain to deal with. But that is for electrical engineers to sort out...
I think that burning ethanol is still releasing carbon into the atmosphere, which is what we were discussing reducing.
It does. But what is more important when it comes to CO2, is where did the carbon come from? For petrol, it came from oil, which before it was refined and burnt, was not in the carbon cycle - so the amount of aptmospheric CO2 goes up. For bio-fuels, e.g. ethanol from sugar cane (more efficient than corn), vegetable oil, aforementioned straw, the carbon comes from the aptmosphere - it was captured and stored by the plants. Therefore burning bio-fuels have no net effect on the amount of carbon in the carbon cycle - it is putting carbon back into the aptmosphere, from whence it came...
And this solar concentration method works a treat. Have you had a read of this: http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/app/research/solar/clfr.html
It's a bloody cool read. Makes me think that this form of energy generation is a really sweet idea. If you want to have another rant. You could tell me why it's not a really good idea. Also, I could tell you reasons why I think that it is better than all the other forms of generation.
Again, it is a good idea. I can see two problems:
1. As mentioned the fuel source is transient. Supply and demand. This is the biggy. It is no good having a source of power that you cannot use when it is needed. Imagine going on a ride and your fuel tank disappears every 10 mins and reappears 10 min later...
2. If they want to extract every last joule of engery from the cycle they could use condensers (creates a vacumn from the condensing steam to increase the power output from the LP turbines). But condensers require a large amount of cooling water - that may be scarce where there is hot dry sun. They could use binary turbines (e.g. like the new units at Wairakei) where the low temperature steam is used to heat pentane which then runs a condensing LP turbine. In fact the steam temperatures are very similar to geothermal applications.
I can think of another reason - it will put me out of a job, unless I bone up on corrosion related damage, and I hate corrosion work!
FM
Cool, I agree with you with most things.
However, I think that the making of Biofuel is far too labour intensive, and completely inefficient, the only reason why it is working in Brazil, is that the government is subsidising it with huge amounts cause it helps to keep money in their country (less going to oil producing nations) creates jobs, and generates useful energy. But it's the least efficient form of energy generation they have come up with yet I think. The amount of energy they use to make it isn't much less than the energy they get out of it in the form of ethanol in the end... It's a bloody sinkhole.
The reason why I came up with the solar method for energy generation, was because I was trying to come up with a way to generate enough energy to power the hydrogen economy. Not so much the electrical needs of a population, although I'm sure that if you use the solar method I have outlined, you can store it in firstly as I have said, Hydrogen. Or better yet, you can just stop drawing as much from the coalfired plants and the hydro systems, while this method is in full flight. But again, I was just thinking of how would you create enough hydrogen to get a million cars running on the stuff. Think of the value of this form of energy generation, it could make it totally worth the initial investment in mirrors, and steam turbines.
The reason why I say steam turbines and not stirling engines, is that I know that steam turbines can process huge amounts of energy reasonably efficiently while keeping it very simple. The stirling engine seems overly complicated to me, and I'm struggling to see how you could use it for pumping out lots of energy. Is there any reason why they use steam turbines in most electricity generation?
I haven't thought about how to scavenge heat energy in steam that has passed through the turbine, but where there is a will there is a way mate. I just haven't put any thought into it, I'm actually not an engineer, rather just a physics/computer science student who is extremely interested in hydrogen and energy generation for that hydrogen. I'm also interested in lots of other science things too. But I can see there is huge money in energy generation and hydrogen, and I can see what it will do for humankind in the nearish future.
Keep the analysis coming Fooman, I love this shit. Yeah I think I took one of your posts the wrong way, cause you said it was a rant. I thought that you meant that you were having a rant at me cause I was stupid.
Winston001
7th July 2006, 10:02
My compliments to Fooman and Vtec - you guys have good ideas and knowledge. The thing about bio-fuels is that they close the carbon cycle, as Fooman points out. But I readily acknowledge that the energy equation for bio-fuel is negative or only 20% positive at best. Ie. for every kilowatt used to plant, harvest, and produce the fuel, there is only 0.9 - 1.2 kw in output.
By contrast, petrol is 16 times as efficent. And yes, Brazil has a false bio-fuel economy with subsidies and environmental problems.
I acknowledge the energy equation problem but in the third world - more than half of humanity - bio waste is cheap to produce so I still think methane/alcohol is viable there with an efficent enough simple engine. High technology isn't available for poor people.
Plus hydrogen is highly volatile. Damned hard to move around and store. Basically, it is bloody dangerous stuff.
Try this:
http://www.allpar.com/cars/concepts/natrium.html
Selected highlights:
The Chrysler Town & Country Natrium, a fuel-cell concept vehicle running on clean, nonflammable, and recyclable sodium borohydride fuel, participated in a ride-and-drive display program at the Pentagon at the request of acting Secretary of the Navy.
The Natrium was the first fuel-cell powered vehicle built to operate on sodium borohydride, a fuel made from borax which is a mineral available in abundant supply in the Western United States. In the Natrium minivan, this technology delivers the environmental benefits of a fuel-cell vehicle without the loss of cargo or passenger space, while providing a range of 300 miles, longer than any other fuel-cell vehicle. Hydrogen is extracted from sodium borohydride to power the fuel cell. Sodium borohydride is a compound chemically related to borax, the naturally-occurring substance commonly used in laundry soap.
* Zero dependency on oil for propulsion
* Cargo and passenger space is not compromised for on-board storage of hydrogen
* Byproduct can be rehydrogenated and used again as fuel
* Near-silent operation
* Capable of producing 110- and 240-volt electricity
* Greater driving range than other fuel-cell vehicles
* Potential for zero emissions of smog-forming and greenhouse gasses.
"Chrysler ... has a long and proud history of supporting our national defense efforts," said Bernard I Robertson, Senior Vice President, Research and Regulatory Affairs. "This unique technology could have great benefits for the military: in particular, it is nonflammable, greatly improving safety in battle zones, and the main ingredient can be transported as a dry powder, dramatically reducing the enormous logistical demands of fueling our military in advanced battle settings. In addition, the greater fleet fuel efficiency would greatly reduce the amount of fuel used by our armed forces--fuel that can cost hundreds of dollars per gallon to deliver to the battlefield. And this technology produces zero smog-forming and greenhouse gases, contributing to a cleaner environment. Finally, sodium borohydride has the potential to reduce or eliminate our dependence on oil for our transportation needs."
The hydrogen is chemically stored in the sodium borohydride and is released by passing a solution of the borohydride over a catalyst. The released hydrogen then fuels the cell, the dehydogenated borax solution is then stored to be recycled later:
Chrysler's system stores hydrogen in sodium borohydride powder, which is nonflammable and nontoxic. After mixing with water, the solution is passed through a catalyst which separates the hydrogen gas and leaves only sodium boride, or borax, as a residue. The borax can then be recycled into sodium borohydride.
Unlike gasoline, the chemicals in Chrysler's system are readily available in North America and much of the world. A tank of sodium borohydride solution about the size of a regular gas tank can power the concept vehicle about 300 miles - much further than other fuel-cell vehicles.
Also, in other posts valid points were made that gaseous hydrogen tends to escape the area quickly with less chance of explosion than hydrocarbon fuels.
Hydrogen costs a lot of electricity to produce, yes, but if efficient electricity generation can be acheived, the "cost" of producing hydrogen is low.
Jerry Pournelle, scientist and author, write a book refuting the Doomsday "we're gonna wipe ourselves out with our carelessness" attitude of a lot of the greenies and said that we have the potential to thrive in style.
One of his suggestions was the placement of solar collectors in orbit - not necessarily photovoltaic (although new ways of making the cells in the future may make a more efficient cell), possibly thermocouples (the sunward side of the satelite is very hot, the shadow side is bloody cold). Beam the electricity generated down to collectors on earth by MASER - Microwave Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation - like a laser but very short wavelength. Cloudy day? Pfft! Who cares.
Of course, the receptor would have to have a No-Fly zone around it because any aircraft passing between the emitter on the satelite and the receptor on the ground is going to be obliterated.
Solar reflectors to power turbines as previously mooted, oceanic thermocouples (the cold of the depths compared with the air temperature) - there are many ways to generate the required electricity, some more fruitful than others but "every little bit helps"
Imagine, increased use of "night store" solar heating and solar water heating cuts back domestic an commercial electricity requirements, energy coming in from our existing sources - hydro, wind, possibly burning straw at Huntly (but emmission controls will probably be in place) - plus whatever can be harvested from the sun in other ways - solar turbines, thermal differences between the air and deep water (or even at geothermal areas - instead of just using steam from geothermal areas to heat things, use the intense geothermal heat vs the air temp to generate power). If the worse came to the worse, we could even have a nuclear reactor - though, as has been said, it's not renewable.
We could, with planning and foresight, move to an independant hydrogen economy. We could store that hydrogen chemically to keep it safe and release it to our fuel cells on demand.
Winston001
7th July 2006, 15:57
Ok Wolf, you've convinced me. H has more practical potential than I appreciated. Funnily enough I've read Pournelle's book and was searching earlier today so I could post a link - but no luck.
Jerry Pournelle has strongly influenced my thoughts on energy which is why I earlier said that we have plenty - just need to release it. Ocean thermocline, space mirrors, anti-matter etc. There was another idea involving magnetic fields (?) but can't remember how it worked. Do you remember?
This is cool, it seems that there is some serious brainpower amongst our biker community. I agree with everything wolf said. We have the potential to have limitless energy with zero pollution.
I still prefer to keep things really simple. Although I'm sure the borohydride method of storing Hydrogen is fine, it's a little too complicated for my likings. When coming up with energy (Hydrogen) creation, storage, and usage, I always try to keep my plans as simple as possible with minimal processes involved. If I can do this and come up with something that seems like it could work, then I know with more refinement (such as heat scavenging) and RnD, then it could make a lot of money. Also, I try to come up with ideas that are very easy to implement. If you were determined you could take that solar/mirror/steam/turbine idea get yourself an engineer, and build a test one. A lot of ideas that come out I have no possible way to take them further, as many details required to make them work are missing from my head, or they require very technical chemical or mechanical processes which are just way out of my league.
With regard to the danger of storing Hydrogen. They managed to fill massive zeppelins with it, and get them into the air. Yes that in my opinion was highly dangerous. But imagine putting petrol vapour in a massive zeppelin. You have the exact same problem. I'm pretty sure that keeping it in something like they keep CNG and LPG would be just fine. So cylinders should be all good. That way you keep the processes simple.
Years ago, when they first started making the petrol engine. Many people were against it, because it was known as the "explosion engine". People felt that having petrol exploding in something just in front of you was a highly dangerous thing. In reality, the steam engines that they were using were much more dangerous, because they stored large amounts of steam in unsafe cylinders, that would sometimes leak and burn the shit out of people. So, as soon as we get our methods under control, dealing with Hydrogen will be pretty safe I'd say.
There was another idea involving magnetic fields (?) but can't remember how it worked. Do you remember?
Shit, dude! I think I read that book in my 20's - and I'm 43 this year. I remember bits about thermocouples, and masers.
I googled and found the book and its contents list:
A Step Farther Out Jerry Pournelle, Ph.D. (Star 0-352-31415-X, Jan 84, £1.95, 400pp, pb); This binds up two (separately paginated) books - A Step Farther Out Part I (Star 1981 0-352-30883-4) and A Step Farther Out Part 2 (Star 1981 0-352-30906-7), which were the original book split in two. In reforming the book, the publishers have duplicated the Preface (Niven), Foreword (van Vogt) & Introduction. The essays have been revised for book publication. [Not seen]
* 9 Preface: The Freedom of Choice Larry Niven pr
* 13 Foreword A. E. van Vogt fw
* 17 Introduction Jerry Pournelle in
* Part One: Survival with Style
* 21 Commentary Jerry Pournelle si
* 22 Survival with Style Jerry Pournelle ar Galaxy Mar 76
* 48 A Blueprint for Survival Jerry Pournelle ar Galaxy May 76
* 62 How Long to Doomsday? Jerry Pournelle ar Galaxy Jun 74
* 71 That Buck Rogers Stuff Jerry Pournelle ar Galaxy Dec 76
* Part Two: Stepping Farther Out
* 86 Commentary Jerry Pournelle si
* 87 Here Come the Brains Jerry Pournelle ar; From Here Come the Brains (GAL, 11.74) & Science and Mans Future (GAL, 9.76).
* 103 The Big Rain Jerry Pournelle ar Galaxy Sep 75
* 114 The Flying Saucers [Guess What? Flying Saucer Research is Respectable] Jerry Pournelle ar Galaxy Aug 75
* 126 Building the Mote in Gods Eye [Mote] Larry Niven & Jerry Pournelle ar Galaxy Jan 76
* Part Three: A Step Farther In: Black Holes
* 156 Commentary Jerry Pournelle si
* 157 Gravity Waves, Black Holes, and Cosmic Censors Jerry Pournelle ar Galaxy Dec 74
* 167 Fuzzy Black Holes Have No Hair Jerry Pournelle ar Galaxy Jan 75
* 174 Crashing Neutron Stars, Mini Black Holes, and Spacedrives Jerry Pournelle ar Galaxy Nov 76
* 187 In the Beginning... Jerry Pournelle ar Galaxy Oct 75
* 197 Afterword to Part III Jerry Pournelle aw
* 9 Preface: The Freedom of Choice Larry Niven pr
* 13 Foreword A. E. van Vogt fw
* 17 Introduction Jerry Pournelle in
* Part Four: Space Travel
* 19 Commentary Jerry Pournelle si
* 21 Halfway to Anywhere Jerry Pournelle ar Galaxy Apr 74
* 31 Those Pesky Belters and Their Torchships Jerry Pournelle ar Galaxy May 74
* 46 Ships for Manned Spaceflight Jerry Pournelle ar Galaxy Oct 74
* 56 Life Among the Asteroids Jerry Pournelle ar Galaxy Jul 75
* 66 Whats It Like Out There? Jerry Pournelle ar Galaxy May 77
* Part Five: A Generation of Wonder
* 84 Commentary Jerry Pournelle si
* 86 A Potpourri Jerry Pournelle ar Galaxy Jun 77
* 103 Highways to Space Jerry Pournelle ar Galaxy Sep 76
* 106 Come Fly with Me Jerry Pournelle ar Galaxy May 78
* 119 The Tools of the Trade (And Other Scientific Matters) Jerry Pournelle ar Galaxy Jun 78
* Part Six: The Energy Crisis
* 135 Commentary Jerry Pournelle si
* 137 Fusion Without Ex-Lax Jerry Pournelle ar Galaxy Oct 76
* 155 Can Trash Save Us? Jerry Pournelle ar Galaxy Jul 77
* 171 The Moral Equivalent of War Jerry Pournelle ar Galaxy Mar 78
* 187 Conclusion: Some Futures Jerry Pournelle ar
I still prefer to keep things really simple. Although I'm sure the borohydride method of storing Hydrogen is fine, it's a little too complicated for my likings.
It is probably simpler than biofuels in some ways.
To me it seems a very "marketable" method of fueling Joe Average's car or motorcycle without "We'll all be blown up" scaremongering.
The alternative would be convincing Joe Average that gaseous hydrogen is actually safer than hydrocarbon fumes and explain the full reason why the Hindenberg was such a calamity and how it could not recur with a properly designed H2 Fuelcell vehicle.
You've met Joe Average - it's simpler to change the hydrogen...
[Edit] Besides, I like the idea that if someone is a total dick and flips their car at least the leaking fuel tank will give the road a well-needed clean...
You've met Joe Average - it's simpler to change the hydrogen...
I should start trying to think more like you, but when I'm thinking of cool stuff, I never really take into account whether Joe Average Lameass will be scared by the new technology. I just think, will it work, and is it feasible. I haven't taken any ideas far enough to need to worry about the "marketability".
Hell, I was even working on a design for a backpack helicopter (just for my own pleasure, no other reason) when I was going through high-school, and then onto tech. I didn't think, "would this scare the crap out of everyone?" I was just thinking if I could get it to work, and if so how damn cool it would be.
P.S. I've got a pretty awesome design in my head, and it's quite simple, but would require computer avionics to control it safely. If you're interested I could elaborate. Initially I thought that I would be able to do it with a piston engine, but to be absolutely sure that it would work, you're probably better off using a gas turbine to power it... I'll draw you a picture, just give me the word.
Winston001
7th July 2006, 17:26
Shit, dude! I think I read that book in my 20's - and I'm 43 this year. I remember bits about thermocouples, and masers.
I googled and found the book and its contents list:
A Step Farther Out
* • Part Six: The Energy Crisis
* 135 • Commentary • Jerry Pournelle • si
* 137 • Fusion Without Ex-Lax • Jerry Pournelle • ar Galaxy Oct ’76
* 155 • Can Trash Save Us? • Jerry Pournelle • ar Galaxy Jul ’77
* 171 • The Moral Equivalent of War • Jerry Pournelle • ar Galaxy Mar ’78
* 187 • Conclusion: Some Futures • Jerry Pournelle • ar
Cheers Wolf. I thought it had a different title but notice it was published in two parts. A biker mate has a copy, and it might be in the library. Pournelle's website is way too cluttered because the guy has so many ideas.
Great enthusiasm Vtec and keep developing those ideas. I presume the helicoptor would be a gyrocoptor to prevent spinning.
I agree with you about simplicity providing the best solutions. Having said that, we rely on incredibly refined and complex technology today - and it is very reliable. I'm just thinking about the third world where most of humanity still lives and who need cheap energy and ways of using it. Fuel cells might be a bit too hard.
I'll probably have to draw you a pic, but it will use two counter rotating enclosed blades, one on either side of the back pack. a gas turbine in the middle of your back with drive train up to the ... anyway I just went and drew it up so here it is. I think I fucked it up a bit though, cause you only need the props servo rotation on one axis, which would let the driveshaft method work... anyway. See if you can work out any flaws. I'll be back online later to answer any question. Hey and you could probably get gas turbines running on Hydrogen :) Renewable energy personal flight, bitchin.
I probably seem about 12 years old with my excitement and immature ideas, but I'm actually 23
Winston001
7th July 2006, 19:13
Hmm........something a bit like that on Mythbusters on Discovery - except it was jet propelled. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_pack
Don't ever apologise for enthuasiasm. The more of us who have it, the better. You might find, on the science theme, Timothy Ferris's "The Whole Shebang" interesting. Essentially it is about current knowledge of the Universe.
Here's another method of jet propulsion... uses compressed air and water :yes:
Oh, and with regard to the starRotor engine, I finally gave it a good mental going over, and think that it could work. As long as the compressor wheel is smaller than the turbine wheel. Still I have no idea about the efficiency of it, or how much torque or power you could expect. Good on them for trying, and hopefully it works out.
Edit: Just noticed that the compressor wheel is effectively smaller, cause the depth is much smaller than the depth of the turbine wheel. The overall diameter's are the same which is what had me wondering about their level of capability. But now my fears are put to rest. They know what they are doing.
I should start trying to think more like you, but when I'm thinking of cool stuff, I never really take into account whether Joe Average Lameass will be scared by the new technology. I just think, will it work, and is it feasible. I haven't taken any ideas far enough to need to worry about the "marketability".
The other major issue with gaseous hydrogen is containment. Pressurised cylinders are bulky and heavy - you can store 2 kg of sodium borohydride in a paper bag (before you dissolve it in water for use as "fuel") If you drop it on your foot, it might hurt a bit.
If you had the gaseous hydrogen extracted from that borohydride in a container and dropped it on your foot, the container would mash your foot to a pulp.
One of the main arguments by detractors of hydrogen fueled vehicles (either combustion or fuelcell electric) was the sheer bulk and weight of containing sufficient hydrogen to have a comparable range with petroleum-fueled vehicles (and the extra weight would decrease the range and performance).
Chrysler came up with the idea of using sodium borohydride because the containment system for sufficient gaseous hydrogen would encroach heavily on the vehicle's seating and storage. Ford and others looked at extracting hydrogen on demand from Methane and other hydrogen compounds but they were bulky, inefficient and polluting (and they were looking for zero-emission solutions.)
Chrysler's solution was compact (a tank comparable in size with a standard petrol tank), light, efficient and non-polluting (extracting gaseous hydrogen from sodium borohydride using a catalyst leaves the sodium boride in solution for collection in a separate "slurry tank"). The range was fantastic compared with prototype fuelcell EVs using conventional means of containment for gaseous hydrogen.
It might be "complex" in that you have to hydrogenate borax and dissolve the resultant borohydride in water then later separate the borax from the water to rehydrogenate it, and it might be "complex" in having two tanks in the vehicle (one to store the borohydride solution to use as fuel, another to collect the borax solution) - but even that is "simple" in comparison with stopping every five minutes to fill up your heavy, sluggish vehicle.
If you like simplicity, I suspect you'd love the simplicity of an entire electric vehicle compared with that of an internal combustion engine - that's just the engine, not including the rest of the vehicle.
Even with a system like that employed by Chrysler's "Natrium", brakes, steering etc, the complexity of the whole vehicle is much less than that of a standard 4-cylinder car engine.
I have extensive files on electric vehicles and what is required to build your own (albeit battery powered) EV. Most the info is of home-made conversions of petrol-driven cars and the process is a simplification of the vehicle - removing complex systems and replacing them with simpler, more robust, more efficient and longer-lived components.
If anyone wants me to flick them a copy of the notes I've written whilst studying and comparing EVs with a view to building a battery-powered motorbike for commuting, send me a PM with your email address.
I like to keep the new technology's simple so that it is easier to explain to people, and so that people can possibly do their own experiments without too much expensive equipment and chemicals.
The reason why I like the idea of running a combustion hydrogen engine, is because we all know that combustion engines work, and I'm sure with R&D we could get it running powerfully, so that we could keep motoring as we know it. I personally love the combustion engine. And currently electric engines that are powerful enough to push a car fast are economically prohibitive (I think). Also, you have to have the fuel cell to go with it, which also is economically prohibitive at this point in time. I'm sure you're right, and the electric way is probably better and more efficient, but I love combustion engines. It's just a personal thing really.
Also I didn't realise that cylinder storage of Hydrogen would be too much worse than cylinder storage of say LPG, but obviously from what you have said, even under extremely high pressure, it's difficult to get much into the cylinder. I was just thinking that borohydride would add unnecessary processes to the system, but you may be right, and it may be a really efficient means of storing Hydrogen, I just don't know enough about it to fully appreciate it.
Looks like you've done some good reading. Thanks for the info. I'll be looking into this Sodium borohydride.
I like to keep the new technology's simple so that it is easier to explain to people, and so that people can possibly do their own experiments without too much expensive equipment and chemicals.
Fuel cells and sodium borohydride solutions are out of the scope of the home experimenter, I admit, but I warrant that a hydrogen fueled combustion engine would possess sufficient complexity to put that outside the scope of the home experimenter, too. Hydrogen is a small, difficult-to-manage molecule compared with the lengthier molecules of LPG or CNG, the logistics of modifying an engine to function on hydrogen would be enormous and outside the scope of a home-grown project. Someone with the resources of a major engineering firm and a lot of money coming in could possibly manage it, but the average home tinkerer would not possess the tools, money and technological resources.
The reason why I like the idea of running a combustion hydrogen engine, is because we all know that combustion engines work, and I'm sure with R&D we could get it running powerfully, so that we could keep motoring as we know it. I personally love the combustion engine. And currently electric engines that are powerful enough to push a car fast are economically prohibitive (I think).
Actually, suitable electric motors (powerful enough to accelerate a cage loaded down with several very weighty deep-cycle batteries (weight of lead is directly proportional to the range of the vehicle) up to 70mph (or higher for short range drag machines) in fairly short order - comparable with a decent car, or better for drag machines) are relatively cheap, as are the electronics required to drive them and power the car's various systems.
Also, you have to have the fuel cell to go with it, which also is economically prohibitive at this point in time.
Fuel cells are too expensive at the moment but are probably cheaper than converting an internal combustion engine to hydrogen fuel. It can be costly enough converting from scratch to run on methane (and that would be relatively simple).
At the moment, the cheapest power for an EV is battery power but that limits the project to relatively short range commuting - you can still achieve 120km/h and get a reasonable range (enough to commute from several places in Auckland to central city and back).
Home grown EV commuter projects are common and there are a number of kits available.
As far as ICEs go, the cheapest and easiest conversion is for alcohol fuel.
I'm sure you're right, and the electric way is probably better and more efficient, but I love combustion engines. It's just a personal thing really.
Fair enough.
Also I didn't realise that cylinder storage of Hydrogen would be too much worse than cylinder storage of say LPG, but obviously from what you have said, even under extremely high pressure, it's difficult to get much into the cylinder.
Hydrogen is the smallest atom and therefore forms the smallest diatomic molecule. Under pressure, it is small enough to start passing into the walls of the cylinder - through the relatively large gaps between the relatively enormous atoms of the metal.
I understand there are difficulties in pressurising it up to a suitable level to hold enough in the tanks for decent range - even with modern tanks.
Therein lies the difficulty in introducing it into an ICE - squirting it into the combustion chamber with the right oxygen mix and then igniting it effectively.
I was just thinking that borohydride would add unnecessary processes to the system, but you may be right, and it may be a really efficient means of storing Hydrogen, I just don't know enough about it to fully appreciate it.
I understand that magnetic storage systems for gaseous hydrogen were mooted - how's that for complexity?
Winston001
8th July 2006, 20:25
All electric vehicles are very attractive. Electric motors on each wheel, few mechanical parts. The problem is conducting the electricity and storing it. I'm fearful we'll swop an oil crisis for a copper crisis. And lead.
Are there any lightweight conducters and batteries?
Ixion
8th July 2006, 21:39
Water vapour makes a good battery, and air is a good conductor.
Winston001
8th July 2006, 22:22
Water vapour makes a good battery, and air is a good conductor.
Methinks you play the fool sirrah!
Ixion
8th July 2006, 23:06
Nope. Ever seen lightning? Admittedly, you DO have to be working on a large scale. But it might not be as silly as it sounds, some sort of controlled capacitive discharge could work (lightning is uncontrolled capacitive discharge). and air 9or any gas) is an excellent conductor, when ionised.
Winston001
8th July 2006, 23:48
That's certainly a novel thought. :2thumbs: There is the small matter of mass - gases by their nature don't compress readily to obtain sufficent free electrons. In fact I'm unaware of any current use for static electricity (it's usually something to avoid) although ionised gases in lasers are useful.
Ixion
9th July 2006, 00:00
Well, provide a big enough electric field, or some nice radiation, and gas will ionise at low pressure.
So, combine rapid mini-lightning bolts wil a steam generator and steam engine and voila. Not quite, of course, but I suspect that any effective personal electric vehicle must wait upon some such "outside the square" discovery.
Yeah there might be a big breakthrough, but I don't know of any crazy ideas that will work. Mostly because they haven't come up with one yet, or maybe they have, but it hasn't been developed yet, and is outside my understanding.
I think they might be able to get Hydrogen fuel cells, working and affordable with more RnD, and mass production. That's all we need now to make an effective Electric vehicle. However then next problem is, where do we get all this power from. And then we're back where we started, coming up with energy generation ideas. I think everything is in place now, it just needs to be refined and acted upon. How much would 32km by 32 km of mirror slats in the outback cost?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.