Login    Register
User Information
Username:
Password:
We are a free and open
community, all are welcome.
Click here to Register
Sponsored
Who is online

In total there are 57 users online :: 6 registered, 0 hidden and 51 guests


Most users ever online was 218 on Wed Dec 07, 2016 6:58 pm

Registered users: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], jackreacher, MSNbot Media, Yahoo [Bot] based on users active over the past 5 minutes

The Team
Administrators
Global Moderators
global_moderators.png CS

Air powered technology

All non-spudgun related discussion goes here such as projects, theories, serious questions, etc. All "off-topic" posts (aka useless posting, determined by moderators) will be removed.
Sponsored 
  • Author
    Message

Unread postAuthor: jimmy101 » Thu Nov 20, 2008 3:38 pm

A compressed air car is going to be inherantly inefficient. No ifs ands or butts about it. The thermodynamics are all wrong and regardless of what folks claim, thermodynamics is the boss of the universe.

Some obvious problems;
1. You can't easily compress air to a liquid, that means the storage capacity of a tank is going to be very small. CO2 would be much better since it can be liquified at much lower pressures.
2. When you compress a gas it heats up, a lot. That heat is lost to the environment. That heat cost $$$ to produce. You can't easily recover most of that lost heat. (Heck, you can see this with a garden variety compressor, the hose from the compressor head to the storage tank will get too hot to touch. That's wasted energy.)

Jitup: The NASA guy was pulling your leg. Yes, enzymes can indeed be very epensive. However, I know of no process that is feasable on a small scale that isn't more feasable on a large scale.
  • 0

Image

jimmy101
Lieutenant General
Lieutenant General
 
Posts: 3129
Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2007 9:48 am
Location: Greenwood, Indiana
Country: United States (us)
Reputation: 7

Unread postAuthor: jitup » Thu Nov 20, 2008 4:24 pm

Jimmy, I know and I am a little ticked :evil: I was crunching the numbers over the enzyme pricing and it is cheaper and way more efficient to produce large quantities of ethanol using my process! :twisted:
I would still like to give my start up a shot but I am still short a whole lota cash and no bank is going to loan to a 17 year old. I am sill refining the formula. I Reiterate Ethanol Is NOT the Solution It will just help ease the crisis if it is not made of corn
  • 0

User avatar
jitup
1st Lieutenant
1st Lieutenant
 
Posts: 251
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 1:40 pm
Location: North east Ohio
Reputation: 0

Unread postAuthor: judgment_arms » Thu Nov 20, 2008 4:42 pm

Bah...
this is just an idea I've been working on but...

what about steam?
if you had an electrolysis machine to separate the hydrogen and oxygen out of water, I guess it's called dihydrogen oxide gas. (I could tell you some funny stories about dihydrogen oxide :D )
used the H2O gas to fuel the fire.
used the steam produced to run the car, truck, generator, etc.
the exhaust gas passes through a second set of cylinders which generates electricity to run the electrolysis machine, then is condensed back to water and dumped into the electrolysis machine.

the basic design would be akin to an articulated engine, except the second set of cylinders would run the generator.

all you'd have to do (once it got started) was provide water.

so, no it's not something from nothing, it's something from water.


if you could separate the hydrogen and oxygen you could then adjust the mix to produce the hottest fire possible. the hotter fire would be more efficient by generating more steam for the given amount of fuel.


sorry for getting off subject, just adding my "green" power plan...
oh how I loathe this whole notion of "green"...
  • 0

Call me "Judge", it's easier to type.

Spud gun safety rules
User avatar
judgment_arms
Major General
Major General
 
Posts: 1272
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 8:49 pm
Location: Not so beautiful North Carolina, but at least it’s the U.S.A.!
Reputation: 0

Unread postAuthor: Fnord » Thu Nov 20, 2008 6:14 pm

Sorry Judge, but you violated the laws of thermodynamics in there somewhere:). In a non-perfect world it takes more energy to split water than you get from burning it.

I don't want to veer too far off topic so I'll just leave it at that.

To the rest:
If you want to get into alternative fuels, think about this: Every type of naturally occurring fuel on the planet contains energy from one source: the sun*.
The process for storing this energy into plant matter (photosynthesis) is, at MOST, around 15% efficient (correct me if I'm wrong).

Solar cells have already passed this number, so the only practical problem is producing solar cells that are cheaper to make/maintain than an equivalent field of biodiesel corn or whatever.

This won't happen soon, but in the future it will. Right now we just need to start trying to produce this stuff as cheap as possible. Battery power-to-weight ratios also need to get better for non-hydrogen electric cars to be useful.

*Geothermal energy isn't significant enough to mention in this case, but it is a viable energy source if converted directly to electricity or steam.
  • 0

Image
User avatar
Fnord
Major General
Major General
 
Posts: 2244
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:20 pm
Location: Pripyat
Reputation: 7

Unread postAuthor: judgment_arms » Thu Nov 20, 2008 9:12 pm

_Fnord wrote:Sorry Judge, but you violated the laws of thermodynamics in there somewhere:). In a non-perfect world it takes more energy to split water than you get from burning it.

I don't want to veer too far off topic so I'll just leave it at that.


Bah... oh well...

fine by me though, Coal is infinitely simpler to use.

my real vote is on coal, there's enough coal in the Pocahontas alone to power these United States, not including the several hundred square miles that is burning and could be tapped in a manner similar to geothermal.
  • 0

Call me "Judge", it's easier to type.

Spud gun safety rules
User avatar
judgment_arms
Major General
Major General
 
Posts: 1272
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 8:49 pm
Location: Not so beautiful North Carolina, but at least it’s the U.S.A.!
Reputation: 0

Unread postAuthor: john bunsenburner » Fri Nov 21, 2008 2:34 am

Ok i think we are looking at alerntive energy with a Co2 output that is 0 or close to that. Solar energy costs alot, geothermal is very difficult in most places but island, WVO is a good idea only in america and other Mc. Donalts ruled contries, hydor electric is good but is a bummer for the enviroment, HHO or browns gas wont work much, Bio gas works well, and compressed air need something to compress it but has potentual as an energy carrier. I quite like the idea of geothermal and nuclear fusion(latter i did not mention) but if you have anything to add to my list then please do so, i just supplied some ideas, and im happy to elaborate, i think this is an interesting topic and if we, spud gunners could solve the energy crisis that would just be awsome, so keep discussing and talking, ill pop by every o often to see whats happening, inbetween that i will think of other fuels. Hope to hear many ideas from you all!
  • 0

User avatar
john bunsenburner
Major General
Major General
 
Posts: 1446
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 5:13 am
Reputation: 0

Unread postAuthor: starman » Fri Nov 21, 2008 3:05 am

john bunsenburner wrote:Ok i think we are looking at alerntive energy with a Co2 output that is 0 or close to that.


This isn't going to happen on any real meaningful scale and nor does it need to. I'm with Judge on this whole "green" talk. CO2 is not a poison nor is it a "greenhouse gas". The earth requires it for its very survival and it is extremely efficient at scrubbing it and producing it as required. There is no proven correlation between CO2 levels as a causative function of planet temperatures. On the contrary, it has been shown that as CO2 levels rise as a result of warm temperature swings. If there is any corrolation as all, it's a result...not a cause.

The whole global warming hokum has been thoroughly debunked by highly educated scientists. Open your eyes folks, do some research, ask critical questions, don't blindly accept the propaganda and above all, don't allow yourselves to be deceived into being a joiner.
  • 0

User avatar
starman
Donating Moderator
Donating Moderator
 
Posts: 3041
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2007 12:45 am
Location: Simpsonville, SC
Reputation: 0

Sponsored

Sponsor
 


Unread postAuthor: john bunsenburner » Fri Nov 21, 2008 3:19 am

you might be right but there are three reasons so use fuels with a low CO2 out put:

1.People buy them which is important
2. They are mostly natural and grow back and so we dont need to dig for coal or oil(or really on others to do so....)
3. who knows maybe you are wrong maybe you are not but i think it seems obvious that chemicals that are chemically stored over millions of years arent the best ting for our atmostphere are they(ok the last one was dumb but who knows)

And if we find the GREEN FUEL the wold is talking about it wold be great, even if it doesnt reallly make a difference... and im not totally sure if you are right, no offence but still
  • 0

User avatar
john bunsenburner
Major General
Major General
 
Posts: 1446
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 5:13 am
Reputation: 0

Unread postAuthor: MrCrowley » Fri Nov 21, 2008 3:25 am

You all know why.
  • 0

User avatar
MrCrowley
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 10207
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 10:42 pm
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Country: New Zealand (nz)
Reputation: 4

Previous

Return to Non-Spudgun Related Discussion

Who is online

Registered users: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], jackreacher, MSNbot Media, Yahoo [Bot]

Reputation System ©'