Home made energy converter.

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

  1. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,723
    Not at all! You see, if you keep the pressure within the system below atmospheric pressure, you could run the system at any temperature at all. For example, if you want to make energy from an ambient temperature heat source, you just keep system pressure around 10mpa. Then the water boils at room temperature, pressure rises, and you can do work.

    (Of course as always you need a cold sink to re-condense it.)

    Definitely! You can use any working fluid.

    Positive displacement engines will always be more efficient than devices that rely on areodynamic forces (turbines.) That's why cars have Otto engines and not turbines.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    223
    'Hello Billvon,

    A thousand thank yous, didnt think of that!

    Carbon Dioxide is its own cold sink, so wants to be cold it freezes when heated!

    Possitive displacement engine have friction and lesser efficiency than turbines. Turbines unless wind do not rely upon areodynamic forces.

    Otto engine is flash steam engine without the steam. As are all internal combustion.

    By having gas drive a liquid piston you have possitive displacement, by having that displacement drive a 82% efficient hydeo turbine compared to 20% efficiency internal combustion, its a second win.

    Nice to converse with one recognising what we be on about.

    Next step is to test the text book. 1 Joule = 1 watt per second, or 1 Joule = 4.2 watts per second. 1 Joule heats 1 litre of water by 1* Celsius in 1 second. 1 litre per second water flow at 9 bar pressure produces 720 watts electricity. 10* Celsius increase in temperature of Carbon Dioxide provides 9 bar pressure. 1 or 42 Joule=watts heat source produces 729 watts electric output.

    Cheers Peter
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,723
    That statement represents a truly profound misunderstanding of physics; I'll let someone else take a crack at explaining that one to you.

    They do have friction. They are also more efficient than turbines, which also have friction.

    OK I'll take a crack at this one.

    Turbines operate by using the principle of lift. They spin faster than the flow rate of the material they are being driven by - by using very carefully shaped blades to use Bernoulli's principle of lift to extract as much energy as possible from the flow of that material. They're not as efficient as positive displacement devices (like piston driven engines) but are simple, lightweight and reliable - which is why they are used in powerplants and on aircraft. (If you've ever flown on a DC-3 you'll see why this is important.)

    Yes, wind turbines use the same principles - because at the end of the day their job is exactly the same. Their design is very different, of course, because they are trying to extract power from a very slow moving material - but they use a lot of it.

    Sort of, yes.

    Positive displacement engines are closer to 90% efficient, when you are talking about the extraction efficiency.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    223
    Hello Billvon,

    Whatever you do dont play with a CO2 fire extinguisher that much cold flying around so quick will do you serious damage, especialy given your knowledge of.

    A couple of type of tubine use an aerodynamic blade in the form of a propeller. Not only ridden DC3's my son drives them and more. Turbines on aircraft are not light weight they are fast, my son drives them to. Piston engines have more torgue than turbine due to turbine require the pressure build up, combustion has it instant. A 90% efficient combustion engine and the world will beat a path to your door. Also no sort of IS, hot air expansion by burning fuel replace hot water expansion by burning fuel, and heating water is more efficient than heating air.

    Cheers Peter
     
  8. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,723
    Heck, my SCUBA tank and my bailout bottle do exactly the same thing - except one uses (primarily) nitrogen and the other uses oxygen. You'd see that in a tank of steam too. Again, basic thermo.

    That would be a turboprop.

    Pratt and Whitney JT9D turbofan engine: 88,000 hp 8900 lbs -> .1 lb/hp
    Lycoming XR-7755 piston engine: 5000hp 6050lbs -> 1.21lb/hp

    ?? Didn't say anything about a combustion engine, just an expansion engine (which is what you were talking about with a turbine.)

    In terms of energy efficiency they are exactly the same. In terms of weight, usefulness, ease of design etc water is a lot better.
     
  9. DaS Energy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    223
  10. Pantaz Registered Member

    Messages:
    31
    I have slightly over 100 psi (6.9 bar) in the water supply line to my house. So, yeah, I'd say 98,000+ psi is a "quite large" difference.

    It takes more than just a welder "with the skills needed for line pipe welding" to produce safe connections for these pressures. A pin-hole leak is potentially lethal. Are you aware that abrasive water-jet machines routinely cut 6 inch thick steel using less than 60,000 psi water pressure?
     
  11. DaS Energy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    223
    Hello Pantaz,

    Entirely agree with you. One welder with engineer firm to gold mining, the other employed deep sea oil.

    The main point of 6,800 bar pressure was its comparison to heat sourcing against Steam. 100*C water boils. At 550*C it has 175 bar pressure. CO2 has 7,000 bar pressure at 100*C. At 50*C it has 200 bar pressure, Steam is still water.

    Steam is ice at 0*C, while CO2 is still plugging away. The lower down the scale in pressure differentialisation the wider the heat source window become. Room temperature heat source 20*C 1.5kW on the one litre turbine 60 RPM.

    As mentioned to other, increase in turbine sizing increases the wattage outcome without shifting the heat differential.

    That pictured on Opening Post confines itself to car water pump for the turbine, galve pipe all fittings and squash balls. All off the shelf, and idealy turbine reject water pump with broken fan (no longer needed).

    Cheers Peter
     
  12. DaS Energy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    223
    Hello Budda 12,

    You make very good sense. Not clear in post that only makes mention of 2*C. Working day and night begins at -10*C. Same numbers involved. The pressure at highest then under 20 bar pressure. Pressure increased by heat, ground sourced or other.

    Cheers Peter
     
  13. DaS Energy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    223
    Hello Buddah12,

    You appear switched on. I have got a text book clash! The publishers are of repute. 82% hydro turbine (take your pick) receiving 9 bar pressure water flow of one litre per second makes 720 watts. Attach graph, provides 6,800 bar of pressure as available energy between the heat of +50*C and +100*C. Or 544kW. Heating one litre of water in one second. Multiple by heat rise *C. Multiply by 0.076. Or 456kW. All worse case plus. However the water is held at 50*C, same wattage need? Water heating 50*C to 100*C 228kW. mulltiple by 2 Text book the overunity is 88kW.

    Post comcept working model aluminium and micro Pelton wheel with Fisher and Pykle washing machine motor. Never was tested to such pressure or thought of figures! Model went to destruction in line pipe (good) build where shaft seals failed.

    Cheers Peter

    http://i1225.photobucket.com/albums...de_pressure-temperature_phase_diagram_svg.png
     
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2012
  14. cosmictotem Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    747
    Why not just build a magnetic string generator?
     
  15. DaS Energy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    223
  16. cosmictotem Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    747
    Come on, guys! Maybe you need a refresher course? It's ALL magnetic string generators nowadays.
     
  17. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,723
    Just build Howard Johnson's permanent-magnet motor! No energy input, rotational power out. No "leather seals" needed. And he has a patent on it so you know it's true.
     
  18. cosmictotem Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    747
    Okay, now you're being ridiculous. Get a hold of yourself. This is a science forum, for god's sake.
     
  19. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,296
    Really? All of this makes every bit as much sense as what the OP of this thread keeps carrying on about - like overunity!
     
  20. DaS Energy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    223
    Text Book Overunity?

    Parts. One litre water. 82% efficient hydro turbine/generator. Metal piping. one way valves. Electric heating element.

    Figures.

    For Heating Flowing Water KW = Liters/min. x Temperature Rise (°C) x 0.076.

    60 litres per minute x temperature rise 50*C (50 -100) = 3000 x 0.076 = 228KW.

    One litre per second water flow 9 bar pressure = 720 watts.

    Gas 50*C 200 bar pressure. Gas 100*C 7,000 bar pressure = available energy 6,800 bar pressure.

    Divide by 9 then multiply by 720 = 544KW. (228KW)

    Gas heated using boiling water.

    http://i1225.photobucket.com/albums/ee397/DaSEnergy/COMPRESSOR-1.png
     
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2012
  21. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,296
    See what I mean?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Not only does this poor jerk fail to realize that overunity is impossible, he cannot even understand that if it weren't we would never, ever run short of energy. Nor would there be any need to drill for a single drop of oil, mine an a ounce of coal or even build a single solar panel.

    Many of us here have attempted to educate him out of his total ignorance of basic physics - but it's just a waste of time an effort. Because in addition to his complete ignorance he also has his blinders on which renders him incapable of learning. Sad, isn't it?

    So that leaves us with only one reasonable course of action: inaction. If we all ignore him and stop posting in this thread (and any others he may start), he will eventually crawl back under his rock.
     
  22. DaS Energy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    223
    "we would never, ever run short of energy" cant have that can we!
     
  23. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    We can't have it because Nature won't allow it. Energy can not be created, no matter how hard you wish for it.

    Your posts are looking more and more like gibberish. I really can't make sense of the numbers you are posting and I don't read hieroglyphs. A few observations:

    (1) 6800 bar will probably never fly for home use. Your reasoning for high pressure is flawed.
    (2) Leather seals are useful in bike pumps. Otherwise, forget it.
    (3) You actually said 1-micron leather. You actually said that.

    Push the reset button and forget everything you've posted here so far.

    Tell me if this is correct: you are describing a machine that has a motor or engine of some sort that rotates. Somehow you spend energy getting this engine to rotate. The engine is connected to some sort of pump, turbine, or compressor that takes your working fluid and increases its pressure from P1 to P2. Then you have a turbine that takes the working fluid at P2, converts it to rotation, and drops it back to P1. Then the rotation you produced can turn an electric generator and you have power for an average home.

    Summing that up: you spend energy to turn an engine to turn a compressor to pressurize a system to turn a turbine to tun an electric generator. Is that correct? If so, cut out all the crap in the middle--connect the engine directly to the generator, and you've solved your problems.

    The only question remains is this: what is the energy source that powers this home generator?

    Please answer in complete sentences if you want to be understood.
     

Share This Page