Star Rotor Engine

[Fooman]

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

[vtec]

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/r...olar/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.

[vtec]

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]

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/r...olar/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

[vtec]

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]

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.

[Wolf]

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]

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?

[vtec]

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.

[Wolf]

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 Man’s 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 God’s 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 • What’s 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

[Wolf]

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...

[vtec]

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]

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.

[vtec]

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]

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.