Home made energy converter.

Discussion in 'Architecture & Engineering' started by DaS Energy, Oct 29, 2012.

  1. DaS Energy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    223
    Hello MacGyver1968,

    Thank you Mitch, I stand corrected

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    "fount" .

    I have to go and look up Comic Sans and Wingdings.

    I find it funny the insults I receive for all is direct from Web library. Its the same books and data they rely upon, though just a few more than they have read.

    I think the cluey ones type any new name into the search bar before commenting.

    Dont post a theories. Nor I do any longer seek out the full range of pressures available to the workings. Mind you I reached that conclusion from having never invested in a safety valve.

    Cheers Peter

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. MacGyver1968 Fixin' Shit that Ain't Broke Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,028
    Oh...I was just piling on in the name of comedy. Comic Sans and Wingdings are common fonts.

    Comic Sans

    I trust my boys like Read only, Billvon and others. If they say it's woo...then I believe them...no offense.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152

    That's why I'm sticking to the facts. The first one I offered was:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    In English, the maximum work that can be done by a machine is the difference between two potential energy levels.

    See if you can digest that, and we can move onto the comparison between ammonia and CO[sub]2[/sub].
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. DaS Energy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    223
    Hello Aqueous Id,

    Is what your saying, if the water is heated to Steam and then cooled back down to Water the Steam shall have a force.

    WOW, who would have thought? I wonder what Ammonia and Carbon Dioxide do when the same Heating and Cooling is applied to them. Surely it could not be Ammonia at 100* Celsius having a pressure of 62 bar, and CO2 at 100* Celsius having a pressure of 7,000 bar.

    Fancy those fools writing books, and putting on the internet the graphs of Ammonia and CO2 pressures at varying temperatures, what were they thinking of, somebody might use them for comparison.

    Some may even use them to challenge your decision Ammonia has more pressure than CO2 at 100* Celsius, god if only they had known how wrong they were.

    Cheers Peter
     
  8. MacGyver1968 Fixin' Shit that Ain't Broke Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,028
    Why are woos always such arrogant assholes? Does it go with the territory?
     
  9. DaS Energy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    223
    Hello MacGyver1968,

    Thank you for the information. No offense taken! Just curious! Keeping up with an ever changing language is akin to keeping abreast of modern technology application.

    Cheers Peter.
     
  10. DaS Energy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    223
    Hello MacGyver1968,

    Could you assist please, with a definition of woos. (Oh bugger if I am not) Allways looking for new words to save on words, being a Woo needs only half the words to let it be know I am a arrogant arsehole. (I am arrogant because I can back it up)

    Cheers Peter
     
  11. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    What water are you talking about? I was talking about ammonia refrigeration. Are you interested in discussing how it works? The main thing you need to know is that these units use a pump which is cheaper (more efficient) than a compressor.

    In refrigeration, you need to first understand that the basic premise involves the expansion of a compressed, cooled gas. When put through an expansion valve, its temp. drops below ambient, and this is how cooling is accomplished. First, though, you would need to understand that this follows the ideal gas law:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Do you understand this expression? Just ask, and I'll go into more detail.

    Can you relate these two ideas to the expression above? Show me what you mean.

    You seem to think this is an asset for CO[sub]2[/sub] as a refrigerant, but when you learn a few of the basics you'll understand it's one of the liabilities. Here it simply means you would have to pressurize the CO[sub]2[/sub], in order to raise its boiling point to somewhere near the boiling point of ammonia. This is a big problem. You have to spend a lot of energy to do this, and your machine becomes a bomb. All of your fragile components would have to be ruggedized.
    The trick is this: to not misunderstand what the graphs are telling you. You will need to be able to graph them yourself in order to recognize the underlying equations from which the graphs are drawn. I think you may be on the verge of discovering what the formulas mean. If you apply yourself to this problem, and try to solve it, I think you'll begin to realize how you have this idea backwards. Your CO[sub]2[/sub] will have to be at a very high pressure just to get it to liquefy near the room temperature,

    No, I never said any of that. And I don't need usually need any graphs to solve this kind of problem since a few equations and a few essential facts are sufficient. I also wouldn't rely on anyone else's graph without first confirming that it's correct. You will also need to be more careful about understanding the difference between idealizations and empirical results, and which is appropriate for the facts you're attempting to glean.

    If you go back to my statement about ammonia vs CO[sub]2[/sub] as refrigerants, recall that I said the ammonia refrigerant only requires a pump, not a compressor. You need only understand that a pump is cheaper to use (more efficient) than a compressor. Another question you should explore is: why ammonia is so common in refrigeration, and why is CO[sub]2[/sub] so rare? Keep in mind, these choices are market-driven, so the manufacturers are going to be looking for the best bang for the buck, and so are the end users.

    I think you also missed my point that refrigerants have to be useful at the operating temperature of the space to be cooled. You will need to get your CO[sub]2[/sub] hotter than the ambient, in order to exchange heat with the ambient, which is an essential part of the cycle. At the same time, you need to be operating near the point where liquid expands to gas. This is where you're going to be exchanging excess heat to the ambient. Now do you see the problem?
     
  12. DaS Energy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    223
    Hello Aqueous Id,

    My appologies to any misconception. I was speaking on using the forces of gas to proppel a turbine. Though I am familiar with the working of "Einstein" Ammonia fridge.

    "Einstein" who brought us the Ammonia fridge did not incorporate a pump in the form of piston or turbine. The pump so known in the Ammonia fridge is the heating of water causing it move uphill where the Ammonia gas escapes the water and the water falls back down.

    Gas does not have to return to liquid to obtain a pressure difference! Absolutely no need whatsoever that CO2 be condensed to liquid to obtain drive forces.

    A pump and compressor be one and the same, the words pump and compressor are often used to signify which is to be pumped water or gas. Simple experiment pour water into the air intake of a compressor note the pump action to the water.

    The reason why I post the CO2 phase graph is to show what forces exist between the low temperature and high temperature. In the Case of CO2 it is Dry-Ice at minus 40*C, it has zero gas pressure. At minus 39* C it goes direct to gas with a pressure force of 1 bar. At 30*C it has a pressure force of 60 bar. At 100*C it has in excess of 7,000 bar pressure force. A heat differential of 70* C delivering 6,940 bar of force. Sream at 100*C has 1 bar pressure, at 550*C it has 175 bar pressure. A heat differential of 450*C to acheive 175 bar of force. (Steam phase graph too large to copy and paste, though easily obtained by web search)

    To obtain a gas drive at ambient temperature the gas must be cooled to lower than ambient temperature.
    To obtain a gas drive at temperature higher than ambient temperature heat must be added then later cooled back to ambient temperature.

    You may find the odd behaviour of CO2 interesting. At gas it behaves as a liquid. It begins as Dry-Ice and goes straight to gas when heated. Further heating turns it to liquid. Further heating turns it to gas. Further heating (above 35*C) turns it to Dry-Ice. (note in attached phase graph to original posting, that appearing as solid is in fact Dry-Ice)

    Its a missconception to beleive energy providers shall allways go for the least expensive. Switching from Steam to CO2 wipes out all need to burn Coal yet more Coal mines are coming into operation. If you want to boil something into a gas force force water is last place you look.

    Cheers Peter
     
  13. MacGyver1968 Fixin' Shit that Ain't Broke Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,028
    A "woo woo" is someone who believes in crazy theories that are not proven by science. Like..."Free Energy" or "over unity devices". I believe the term was coined by James Randi. Describing something or someone as "Woo" means you think it's scientific bunk.
     
  14. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    It was a useful device to folks who had no electricity. And it demonstrated the work advantage of the hygroscopic absorption of ammonia by water. There are several types of ammonia refrigerators. I was speaking of the type commonly used in homes, which uses a pump. This has a useful and practical advantage over the alternatives. Except for the ammonia, which is harmful, the use of the pump gave folks a sense of security. It's safer than a compressor which has a capacity to explode, and ammonia was considered safer than flammable and explosive gases which were known to have practical use as refrigerants.

    We were talking about refrigeration, in which the step change in volume, at phase change, is exploited and used as a mechanical advantage--in this case, a volumetric advantage.

    The need is to exploit the advantage of the step change in volume at phase change.

    There is a difference in efficiency. Pumping a liquid moves more molecules per second than pumping a gas, for the same expenditure of torque.

    Now take your graph and figure out how much energy it takes to compress the gas to its solid phase and you'll understand why ammonia is better. All that energy you spent running your compressor is done for free in ammonia simply by its free phase change from gas to liquid, upon hygroscopic absorption by water.

    Check out the magic of hygroscopic absorption.

    [video=youtube;-z4liRirdv0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-z4liRirdv0[/video]


    This is the advantage that made the Einstein refrigerator useful. (He didn't invent the principle, by the way, although he showed prowess in patent law by filing it. I think the prize for innovation goes to Ferdinand Carre who discovered the ammonia absoption refrigeration cycle in the mid-1880s.) Check out the icyball, a device Einstein probably had on hand to inspire him.

    But back to pressure: compare the 7,000 atmospheres of your machine to the detonation potential of a stick of dynamite and you will begin to see the practical disadvantages.

    Which costs energy. This is why there is no such thing as free exploitation of a single ambient temperature. Free exploit of two temps is another thing, which is what gives geothermal its appeal. The point for cranks to recognize that there is no free exploit of a single temperature. It's only free if you have a free temperature difference, in other words, you need two free temperature supplies.

    All of that costs money, and may or may not have any advantage. You have to address design at the system level to ascertain the overall cost to benefit ratio.

    At sufficient pressure, water can exist as warm ice, as can many other substances. You need to address the impracticality of operating at 7,000 atmospheres. Compare this to the damage done by an exploding tire, inflated to only 2 atmospheres. I think this is where you are losing folks.

    I was actually talking about A/C and refrigeration manufacturers, and end users, who gravitate to the cheapest operating cost, the lowest investment, and the safest and lowest maintenance systems available. By the way, check out dry ice manufacturers. I'm quite certain they use ammonia based refrigeration.

    These are two independent sides of the system. The choice of a fuel to produce heat has nothing to do with the choice of the fluid used to convert heat to torque.

    Water is used for many reasons. The fact that it comes to us compressed as a liquid at 1 bar, that it's safe, cheap, easily stored and transported, etc. are all practical considerations you are overlooking. It has a useful 22:1 volumetric advantage at 1 bar, 100 °C.
     
  15. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,725
    This is where you make your mistake. CO2 can be used as a working fluid just like H20 can. But you still need the heat source (combustion of coal) and the heat sink (the river, cooling tower etc) to drive any Carnot power cycle regardless of working fluid.
     
  16. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,296
    And that's far from all his gross mistakes. In fact, he's made SO many absurd statements in this single thread that it would take an entire page to list them all.

    He obviously has no concept of losses in energy conversion nor does he even come close to understanding the importance of efficiencies.

    For example, his statement, "Its a missconception to beleive energy providers shall allways go for the least expensive." is so absurd that it approaches idiocy. "Least expensive" IS the entire name of the game! No power generating company is going to absorb additional costs of lesser efficiencies when the entire focus is on cutting costs and increasing income.

    Here's two more: "Gas does not have to return to liquid to obtain a pressure difference!" and "Absolutely no need whatsoever that CO2 be condensed to liquid to obtain drive forces." The poor jerk doesn't even realize that PHASE CHANGE is precisely the MAJOR factor exploited by both refrigeration and power generating systems.

    Apparently, at some point, he did some reading on these subjects. But his poor reading comprehension - which he continues to display here with practically every response - didn't allow him to understand more than a tiny fraction of the information.

    And he's little different from other obnoxious individuals that have appeared on this site. If he had simply asked questions, there are several of us here who would have been more than happy to have walked him through what he's missing. But NO! Instead, he jumps in here and in a state of semi-ignorance starts TELLING us - who actually know the subjects well - how to make things "better."

    And when ignorance is coupled with arrogance, as in his case, the labels of "crank" and "idiot" are well earned and deserved.
     
  17. DaS Energy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    223
    Hello billvon,

    I fully agree a heat source and a heat sink are require for any gas.

    Where the difference lies is in the ammount of heat source and hink sink needed to obtain a pressure differential.

    These are available in gas temperature phase graphs.

    Temperature phase graph for CO2 accompanies the post.

    Tenperature phase graph for H20 is to large to post. However H20 does not turn to Steam untill 100*C and has a pressure force of 1 bar whereas CO2 has turned into gas at minus 39*C and has a pressure in excess of 7,000 bar at 100*C.

    In many cases a pressure force of 7,000 bar is not required so a lower heat source and heat sink are needed.

    To obtain a heat of 100*C Coal does not need be burnt.

    Cheers Peter
     
  18. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,296
    Just more of the same old stupidity! You had better recheck the graph, dummy! If water in a closed boiler only created 1 bar of pressure when it's vaporised there NEVER would have been such a thing as steam-powered anything! Absurd!!!!!
     
  19. DaS Energy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    223
    Hello Read-Only,

    The poor jerk does release if you heat a gas it expands and that expansion creates a force. The same poor jerk realises that if a hot gas is cooled it shrinks thereby be lessor force be in than was there before. Some may even beleive if you have lesser force coming out than going in to a turbine the bit inside might go round and round, but those poor jerks are without your magnitude of understanding.

    Cheers

    Peter
     
  20. DaS Energy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    223
    Hello Read-Only

    I realise this may be hard for you to understand but they heat water in closed boiler to temperature above 100*C 1 bar pressure, some even take the temperature to 550*C 175 bar pressure some even take the temperature higher, others even higher but thats classiffied Defense Department.

    However I am glad your smart enough to realise that water at 100*C and 1 bar pressure aint going to do much.

    Others not as dumb may have reasoned for themselves a substance that has 7,000 bar pressure at the boiling point of water (and its 1 bar pressure) sure needs a lot less heat to get that turbine going round and round.

    Cheers Peter
     
  21. DaS Energy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    223
    Hello Macgyver1968,

    Thanks for that, I am a knock about bloke but hadnt heard the expression before. I can see the application for over unity, but I keep in mind the absolutes of yesterday are bunkum today. I may be of help in reguard Free-Energy, if Carnot is to be beleived Heat=Energy then there sure is a lot of free energy about

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    .

    Cheers Peter
     
  22. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,296
    Nope. You just PROVED that you did not understand the mistake you made, even though I quoted it for you. You still haven't learned a thing. Sad, really. <shrug>
     
  23. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,725
    Nope. A closed container of boiling water at 100C most definitely does not have a "pressure force" of 1 bar. It boils at 100C at 1 bar; the pressure then increases quite rapidly.

    True. But once you are out of liquid CO2 then you can get no more energy out of the system. You're done. (Unless you have a -40C heat sink to recondense it.)

    Very true. You can use a solar concentrator, or a nuclear reactor, or natural gas combustion, or wood, or pretty much any heat source.
     

Share This Page