The "Cast Iron Cookers" are being considered for modification to
produce electricity for household lighting from their waste heat. These type of cookers can
be seen here. http://www.cast-iron-range-cookers.co.uk
These are "heat storage" cookers and can be run - and are being run
- on Biogas and Biodiesel. Could also act as the energy store for a
wind turbine. As there are electric powered versions available.
People look after their cast iron cookers which are in effect a "Heat Storage Battery"
I have been watching the conversation now, with some ammusement, because it
appears that people are trying to reinvent the wheel.
The National Forest Service spent some time looking at the different types
of chippers, and they found that auger type chippers ( few companies make
them ), give a very consistant product, with >75% of the chips falling
within a given size range, and and the majority of the remaining chips
usualy fall into the sizes just before and after.
To change the size of the chips, you change the size of the blade, and the
chips can be as small as 10-15mm ( .40 - .60 inches ) and as large as 60-100
mm ( 2.4 - 4 inches ), and if nessesary handle pieces of wood with diameters
up to 230mm ( 9 inches ), depending on the size of the machine and power
source. Here is one that can be used with any tractor that has a 3pt
hitch and PTO ( http://en.laimet.kummeli.fi/index.html?n=4464 ) it will chip
branches up to 100mm ( 4 inches ) and produce 2-6 cubic meters of 10-15 mm
( .40 - .60 inches ) chips an hour ( 2.6 - 7.8 cubic yards ) depending o
nthe type of wood, and you don't even have to dismount the blade to sharpen
it.
I worked from home on monday and tuesday. I heard a truck in the driveway.
went out and was an older gentleman and his wife. They had heard I had a
wind generator and wanted to see it. Good thing I was home because he was
looking for a big one, I pointed to it we talked for 20 minutes or so.
THere are a lot of people really ticked at our electric coop. They bought
a small peaking plant just across the state line that sold out. Then they
raised our rates basically about 15% to cover the cost.
For this area we are probably the most expensive electricity in 50 mile
radius or more. NOt nearly as expensive as other parts of the country but
it still works out to real world number in the 14-17c/kwh assuming one
uses at least 200-300 kwh/month.
He came looking because he has two houses and his bill jumped to
$700/month. well even simple head math says he is going to have to do a
lot of changes to get down to where he can even think about going
renewable. Even at the cheapest enerstar rates that would have to be
3000 to 4000 kwh/month. He wasnt oblivious to what he needed to do, he had
converted to CF's, power stripped everything he coule but still not
putting a dent in it. I gave him some suggestions and my latest copy of
Home POwer and told him to feel free to stop by if he wanted to talk.
Wish I would have gotten his number or rememberd his name. he has electric
water heater and electric dryer. I'm sure those are a large percentage of
his bill, even wondered if maybe he had an element out in his water heater
causing the other to run near continuous and never quite getting things up
to temp. But I will have to hope maybe he stops by againl.
I'd like to at least try to talk through what might be the pig in his
house.
The real kicker is, we have corn uin the field this year so no one can see
us from the road. Its a small town but its a relatively small set of folks
that know and comprehend what I have power wise. He didnt tell me who
pointed him to me, I'd be curious.
If I thought I could make a living providing moral support for folks in
his boat, I might not mind doing it, but I am guessing my bills are still
a little too high to cut the cord to full time employment.
boy how is that for a ramble on a wednesday night.
bob
marshall, il
q
__._,_.___
To unsubscribe from this list, send an email to:
12VDC_Power-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Please don't email the entire list with your unsub request. TNX
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
.
__,_._,___
Labels: Wind Turbine
We discussed this design on a biogas digestion list
http://listserv.repp.org/pipermail/digestion_listserv.repp.org/
(see the July 2008 archive)
It seems the inner methane digester was dedicated to methane
digesting. The compost pile around it provides only heat, no methane.
Probably compost's pile heat speeds up methanogenesis.
Some members considered Pain's methods were rather empirical than
scientific and required a lot of work.
For compost heat only, mabe a smaller scale, insulated and
forced-aeration composter - like the one proposed by C.Johnson -
should be considered http://mb-soft.com/public3/globalzl.html
Labels: Wind Turbine
I use a table saw quite often and I know that hardwood will bog down a three horse power motor
easily and that is just one blade. Multiple blades are going to require
a lot of power. For instance, look at this thing
http://www.directindustry.com/prod/maquinas-pinheiro/automatic-multi-blade-rip-saw-21872-50641.html
That is a multi-blade rip saw and it has a 100 hp motor. There is also
the problem of feeding. A ten inch blade with a one inch arbor and
washers is only going to give you a feed capacity of 3 inches or so.
Then how do you keep the blades from quickly grabbing the wood and
binding up? If you have the blades cutting so they pull the wood they
are just going to grab on and stall the motor. If you have the blades
so they push the wood they are going to spit whatever you put in there
right back at you.
I have also had carbide teeth come right off saw blades from feeding too
fast and hitting a knot or nail. It would be a real pain to have to
take apart the whole blade stack and replace a blade every time a tooth
comes off.
Labels: Wind Turbine
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/23/dining/23sushi.html
Tasty, hmmm??? Want salt with that mercury?
No solution is perfect - LED's use caustic chemicals to produce, CFL's
use a micro-dot of mercury. But - CFL's put out more useful light for
the energy used than any other commercially available light source,
which means tons of coal not being burned across the nation meaning tons
of mercury not being released into the atmosphere as a result.
Of course, it's even worse - the sushi isn't necessarily the fish
they're advertised to be:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/22/science/22fish.html
So, in trying to avoid one fish, you may be eating the very fish you're
trying to avoid, or eating something far worse. But... you say you don't
eat sushi so what's up? Well... sushi does not have a monopoly on the
fish market or on corruption. It's a tiny segment - and if they're this
bad, you can believe that the rest is just as rotten to the core - both
in contamination and in corruption. And fish is also used in many
products that we consume or apply.
Of course to avoid it in the near term, all it takes is to put in a
decent little tank of your own - taking up little more room than a
child's wading pool - and raising your own fish - be it tilapia or
catfish or whatnot. But in the long term it's going to take
multinational cooperation in reducing coal burning power-plants output.
And that means choosing the lessor of two evils - choosing the CFL with
it's dot of mercury to avoid the release of ounces of mercury it will
prevent over it's life. It also means getting past all those crack-pots
who are protesting wind-farms and coming up with any lie to support
their opposition - noise keeps them from sleeping, birds get killed.
Sheesh - noise? People pay high dollar to live near the coast where
there's noise ALL the time. With all our roads, we all have the noise of
traffic 24/7 including Jake-breaks in the middle of flatland just
because the truckers are being obnoxious. Dogs barking all night. Cats
in heat. Neighbors booming music. Noise is ubiquitous in our lives and
they claim that wind-farms are noisy and should be banned? Bird kill -
most who say that have never been to a wind-mill. See any dead birds?
For every dead bird you find, I'll show you hundreds killed by
bird-strike on wind-shields of cars, and hundreds more killed by clear
windows on houses. Not to mention birds sucked up by jet engines. I've
hit birds. Several. I've also seen birds slam into windows head on.
Nearly messed my pants it startles me so much. But, I've never once seen
a dead bird from a mill. It can happen - but it's a lessor evil when
compared to the alternatives. You know, our traffic and windows has
killed more birds than West Nile Virus even! Sheesh.
Of course, I digress from the topic. What we do has an impact on the
environment that returns to bite us in one way or another. Wasteful
energy use comes back to us in our diets, poisoning us. Non-organic
agriculture creating entire dead-zones in the Gulf of Mexico from the
soluble fertilizers. And each of these are caused by each of us a little
bit at a time. So each of us can reduce it a little bit too. One CFL
bulb in each of our homes will make an enormous difference. Complete
conversions would make phenomenal differences. The only non-CFL's we
have are on variable switches - and I'm in the process of changing those
switches and replacing them bulbs too.
We just need to break past these fear-mongers and take a stand.
I do find this amusing:
"When told of the newspaper's findings, Andy Arons, an owner of Gourmet
Garage, said: "We'll look for lower-level-mercury fish."
Sooo.... is that like going to market and saying "I'd like the Mercury
Light fish, please." Look for lower-level-mercury fish - how do you
tell? Ask it? Hey, eat any mercury lately? Are they really going to take
samples from every fish and send it off to be tested? Typical response,
methinks - in other words - they have no idea of what they're buying and
sell this stuff hoping no one notices or comes and tests. Which...
someone did notice.
Labels: Wind Turbine
At present my 2200's ( I have two ) use the onboard charger in the
UPS, which you CAN disable. ( there are lots of how to's on the
internet, but basically you clip a wire )
I have a solar charge setup that charges a very large battery bank 24
vdc battery bank that is seperate from the UPS battery banks.
both of my inverters use a 48vdc battery setup and i have a seperate
48vdc charger that i could use on those batteries, IF I NEEDED it. But
never have hooked it in.
I operate both UPS's standalone for my studio power and charge from
the grid. HOWEVER if I ever needed to charge the 48vdc batteries from
the solar, I would use the 48vdc charger I have.
My solar battery setup is 24vdc and uses a Xantrax charge controller.
That charge controller can be setup to charge 12, 24 or 48 vdc by
changing the switches. I have one extra as a spare.
SO if I needed to charge those other batteries in an extended grid
down situation I could use my 48vdc charge, or the Xantrax configured
for 48 vdc or the generator running the 48vdc charger.
My 48vdc charger is a LaMarche unit that will put out 50 amps and came
out of a Telecom install, has a normal and equalize switch and will
run on 120 or 220 VAC.
I have a two large battery banks on the two 2200's with each having
it's on fuses, and all hardware.
the batteries will run my studio lights, and computers for a long
time. I've ran it for 12 hours straight and only drained the batteries
halfway. Now I am NOT RUNNING 2200 kva and I guess the load is
somewhere around 200 watts on each UPS/Inverter.
I have all the necessary stuff to charge those batteries from my array
or solar, or gennie if need be. but at present leave it all as
installed until I need to make adjustments.
It does irk my wife when we have a power outage on the house ( not all
hooked in to the solar setup ) and the studio has full lights,
internet and computers, but the house only has lighting.
I plan to install two large whole house inverters someday that will
run both sides of my home panel, but at present only have this
capability on the studio.
those APC UPS's are long lived and even when i ran them for 12 hours
straight did not get hot or anything, but the fans did run the whole
time. But then again I did not have them at full load either.
i agree with www.homebrewpower.co.uk that the BEST inverters going these days are the
Prosines, or the Outbacks, if you can afford them
These 2200 i payed 100 each and put in my own large battery, as the
batts that came with them were shot. 100 was cheap enough, and i know
I could use them as main inverters in a pinch.
Labels: Wind Turbine
Figures released for large UK coal fired power
plants - for example Drax which is the 2nd largest coal fired power station
in Europe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drax_power_station
It burns between 7 and 11 million tonnes of coal per year and produces on
average 24 TWh of electricity to the grid. I'll let you do the ground work
and calculate the approximate efficiency - but I think that you will fid
that it is well below 40%.
For the figures to be meaningful you have to specify the calorific value of
the coal being burned. Lignite (Germany, Poland, N. Dakota) is only good
for 8500 BTU/lb. Bituminous and semi-bituminous coals are generally around
12,000 BTU/lb.
The efficiency of the plant can be increased by designing it for higher
steam temperatures and pressures -
Explained here
http://www.mhi.co.jp/en/technology/review/pdf/e423/e423094.pdf
However this adds significant additional cost - and most power companies
have been reluctant to follow this route - they're running a business for
profit after all, not wishing to get involved in high-risk super-effiecient
thermal designs - and so compromise between cost/complexity versus
efficiency is a deciding factor.
This 2005 Japanese plant manages 43% efficiency
http://www.mhi.co.jp/technology/review/pdf/e451/e451011.pdf
Here's a wiki entry for typical efficiencies of turbine based thermal
powerstations.
http://wapedia.mobi/en/Thermal_power_station
This document explains increases in efficiency since 1920 about 20%, rising
to about 30% in the 1950s. Modern stations are often taken as an avearge
efficiency of 38% stating that the best we are ever likely to achieve is
about 55%, but for practical reasons summarised on the last page, suggest
that we are likely only ever to see efficiencies of between 40% and 45% when
the station is connected to a real world fluctuating load.
For practical purposes, you can assume that 60% of the thermal energy in the
coal is lost to the atmosphere
http://www.sealnet.org/s/8.pdf
Labels: Coal Gasification, Fossil Fuel Crisis, Fossil Fules, Gasification, Gasifier, Wind Turbine
Coal was traditionally gasified to make lighting gas and for running gas engines. With improved pipelines, natural gas began to become popular in the 1940s in the US and so manufacturing gas from coal fell almost into obscurity.
In the 1980s a coal gasification plant was built in North Dakota, with the purpose of converting the local brown coal into high purity methane that could be used for domestic and industrial heating in the local community.
At the time it was built, oil was cheap and so the economics didn't quite work out.
However, one of the by-products of the gasification was large volumes of pure CO2, and a pipeline was built to run 205 miles north up into Sascatchewan, so that the CO2 could be used to pressurise an oil field and get another 20 years of production from the declining field.
The process is detailed here:
http://www.dakotagas.com/Companyinfo/Gasification_Process.html
Coal gasification will likely become a viable energy conversion technology and it has the following advantages:
1. It converts low calorific value brown coal into high energy natural gas that is easier to transport and use.
2. The by-products are easily separated from the process and have commercial value for fertilisers and phenol feedstocks.
3. The CO2 is captured and can be sequestered in oil wells allowing extended production
4. Waste products - toxic metals etc are separated from the mix and can be appropriately handled
5. There is no requirement for an exhaust stack so atmospheric pollution is low.
It is fairly obvious that the world will have to continue to use its coal reserves for producing primary energy - more so with declining petroleum reserves. Coal gasification could be one technique that greatly improves the utilisation of what is generally considered to be a dirty polluting fuel.
As coal fields are exploited, the most valuable grades are consumed first. Coal gasification allows the exploitation of the remaining poorer grades.
The natural gas can be added into the existing pipeline distribution network or can be used at the plant in a combined cycle gas turbine power plant. So the energy in the coal can be exported either as electricity or as methane.
If the coal gasification process runs continuously, the methane can fuel CCGT power plant at times of peak power demand, or compressed and stored at times of low power demand. So by storing the energy in the form of methane it allows you to meet the changing demands put on the power plant. Extra CCGT generators could be spooled up quickly using the stored methane when needed.
By locating these gasification plants close to the coalfields - coal transport costs could be reduced. Energy exported in the form of electricity - possibly using a new HVDC supergrid, would be in great demand during summer months for air conditioning, whilst in winter months, natural gas for home heating may be more appropriate. Either way there is flexability to tailor the exports to meet the changing demands.
Coal gasification is a scaleable technology. Plants could be designed to suit the output of the local coal fields and the demands of the population.
The ND plant uses nearly 6 million tons of lignite per year and from this produces 54 billion cubic feet of natural gas per year - enough to power a CCGT power plant of between 800MW and 1GW.
Coal was traditionally gasified to make lighting gas and for running gas engines. With improved pipelines, natural gas began to become popular in the 1940s in the US and so manufacturing gas from coal fell almost into obscurity.
In the 1980s a coal gasification plant was built in North Dakota, with the purpose of converting the local brown coal into high purity methane that could be used for domestic and industrial heating in the local community.
At the time it was built, oil was cheap and so the economics didn't quite work out.
However, one of the by-products of the gasification was large volumes of pure CO2, and a pipeline was built to run 205 miles north up into Sascatchewan, so that the CO2 could be used to pressurise an oil field and get another 20 years of production from the declining field.
The process is detailed here:
http://www.dakotagas.com/Companyinfo/Gasification_Process.html
Coal gasification will likely become a viable energy conversion technology and it has the following advantages:
1. It converts low calorific value brown coal into high energy natural gas that is easier to transport and use.
2. The by-products are easily separated from the process and have commercial value for fertilisers and phenol feedstocks.
3. The CO2 is captured and can be sequestered in oil wells allowing extended production
4. Waste products - toxic metals etc are separated from the mix and can be appropriately handled
5. There is no requirement for an exhaust stack so atmospheric pollution is low.
It is fairly obvious that the world will have to continue to use its coal reserves for producing primary energy - more so with declining petroleum reserves. Coal gasification could be one technique that greatly improves the utilisation of what is generally considered to be a dirty polluting fuel.
As coal fields are exploited, the most valuable grades are consumed first. Coal gasification allows the exploitation of the remaining poorer grades.
The natural gas can be added into the existing pipeline distribution network or can be used at the plant in a combined cycle gas turbine power plant. So the energy in the coal can be exported either as electricity or as methane.
If the coal gasification process runs continuously, the methane can fuel CCGT power plant at times of peak power demand, or compressed and stored at times of low power demand. So by storing the energy in the form of methane it allows you to meet the changing demands put on the power plant. Extra CCGT generators could be spooled up quickly using the stored methane when needed.
By locating these gasification plants close to the coalfields - coal transport costs could be reduced. Energy exported in the form of electricity - possibly using a new HVDC supergrid, would be in great demand during summer months for air conditioning, whilst in winter months, natural gas for home heating may be more appropriate. Either way there is flexability to tailor the exports to meet the changing demands.
Coal gasification is a scaleable technology. Plants could be designed to suit the output of the local coal fields and the demands of the population.
The ND plant uses nearly 6 million tons of lignite per year and from this produces 54 billion cubic feet of natural gas per year - enough to power a CCGT power plant of between 800MW and 1GW.
Labels: Coal Gagification, Fossil Fuel Crisis, Fossil Fules, Gasification, Wind Turbine
These were very nice units for their time. I used a Fortress LI-720
at home (on ~70 Ah of external batteries) to support computer and
telecom equipment for about five years, before converting most loads
to native DC, and it never gave me any trouble.
They do produce a true sinewave, like an APC Smart-UPS, and the
circuit topology is quite similar between both, with multi-tap
buck/boost transformers, etc.
The Fortress takes better care of its batteries than does an APC,
though, keeping them at a proper float voltage most of the time
(following bulk recharge), with occasional, higher-voltage
"equalizing" cycling to keep sulfation at bay.
Also, you can talk to them through a plain-ASCII command prompt on the
serial port, with almost every parameter, including charge voltages
being adjustable.
See
http://www.networkupstools.org/protocols/fortress/page6.html
http://www.networkupstools.org/protocols/fortress/page5.html
(and so on back to 'page1.html'). There were several varieties of
Fortress sold, and parameters can vary a bit.
Note that most of the settings marked Change Not Allowed *can* be
adjusted, but you need to supply the "Factory" password to do so.
This is 18473 for every Best Power UPS I've worked with (including
the Fortress, FerrUPS, and others). Enter
pw 18473
and its command prompt should change to "Fact =>".
Yup, that's a big drawback to nearly all UPSes of this type, with the
more sophisticated "line interactive" models (Fortress, SmartUPS)
being worse than the simple & cheap ones.
My 720VA Fortress also drew about 22W from the grid whenever it was
plugged in and "on", even with no load and fully charged batteries.
Labels: Wind Turbine
I've been running a few small 21w PV panels here
to a small portable 300 watt backup unit called the Nomad 300 from
www.solarsense.com, but was thinking of getting additional PV's to
hook-up to the APC unit.
Labels: Wind Turbine
Modifying a inexpensive temperature probe is an awesome idea. I'll get
after that, in the meantime what is the optimum core temperature,
compared to ambient seasonal temps? I was thinking a wood chip and
sawdust compost pile of sufficient size could at least reach 100
degrees Fahrenheit.
Llke you say, the core temperature needed depends on what the purpose
of the pile is. It seems like every project is as complex as we can
imagine. My goal right now is to get the shell of my new shop up
before Winter, once I have a more comfortable place to work, I will
bring my old International Harvester Utility 460 indoors and finish
retrofitting the frontend loader to it. If all goes as imagined, which
I know is a lot of "ifs" next year I will be able to stir giant
compost piles made from forest management by-products.
Check out my newsletter for pictures and text of the sustainable
energy and passive solar designed workshop progress.
http://outfitnm.com/index.php?option=com_letterman&task=view&Itemid=140&id=100
What I am trying to do is shred a few limbs from
time to time. I have used it and if I was cautious with the feed speed, it
worked fine.
If we were going to feed 6" logs rapidly into several saws, you are correct
that we would need a lot of power. To avoid bogging the saws, we will have
to control how fast the branch feeds into the saws.
You are correct that we must align the table so that all of the contact of
the branch into the saw is at the middle or above. I have had no trouble
with it kicking back. Still, I think standing to the side, so that your
body is not in front of the blades, is a good idea.
One tooth will not stop us. Two or more together will and you are correct,
it will be a pain to disassemble the stack.
http://www.directindustry.com/prod/maquinas-pinheiro/automatic-multi-blade-rip-saw-21872-50641.html
That is a multi-blade rip saw and it has a 100 hp motor. There is also
the problem of feeding. A ten inch blade with a one inch arbor and
washers is only going to give you a feed capacity of 3 inches or so.
Then how do you keep the blades from quickly grabbing the wood and
binding up? If you have the blades cutting so they pull the wood they
are just going to grab on and stall the motor. If you have the blades
so they push the wood they are going to spit whatever you put in there
right back at you.
I have also had carbide teeth come right off saw blades from feeding too
fast and hitting a knot or nail. It would be a real pain to have to
take apart the whole blade stack and replace a blade every time a tooth
comes off.
_Researchers: Water-splitting discovery is giant leap for solar energy storage_
(http://web.hermesemessenger2.com/tfg/public/Update_Links.asp?EmailAddress=CAVM@AOL.COM&ScheduleID=1215&IssueID=297&FileName=http://web.hermesemessenger
2.com/tfg/public/newsletters/present/ISSUE297/article910.html&ArticleID=910)
A recently developed process that splits water into hydrogen and oxygen
gases using the sun's energy could one day efficiently store solar power—and
this could soon transform solar power from an alternative to a mainstream
energy source, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) researchers said last
week.
Inspired by plant photosynthesis, the process developed by MIT Professor of
Energy Daniel Nocera and postdoctoral fellow Matthew Kanan uses two
catalysts, one that produces oxygen from water, and the other, hydrogen. The oxygen
and hydrogen may be recombined inside a fuel cell for carbon-free electricity,
the researchers said.
The oxygen-producing catalyst—a new discovery—consists of cobalt metal,
phosphate, and an electrode, placed in water. Electricity running through the
electrode causes the cobalt and phosphate to form a thin film on the
electrodes and form oxygen gas. Combined with a hydrogen-producing catalyst—such as
platinum—the system can duplicate the water-splitting reaction in
photosynthesis.
Nocera said in an MIT _news release_
(http://web.hermesemessenger2.com/tfg/public/UsageTracker/usage_tracker.asp?targeturl=http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/20
08/oxygen-0731.html&issueid=297&EmailAddress=CAVM@AOL.COM)
that more engineering work is required to integrate the discovery into
existing photovoltaic systems. "The new catalyst works at room temperature, in
neutral pH water, and it's easy to set up," he said. "That's why I know this
is going to work. It's so easy to implement."
Industrial processes to split water with electricity are currently in use,
but they use electrolyzers that are not suited for artificial photosynthesis
as they are costly and require a non-benign environment, the release said.
This process, in contrast, uses nothing but abundant, nontoxic natural
materials. In one hour, enough sunlight strikes Earth to provide the entire planet
's energy needs for one year, Nocera said.
"This is the nirvana of what we've been talking about for years," he said. "
Solar power has always been a limited, far-off solution. Now we can
seriously think about solar power as unlimited and soon."
Source: MIT
Labels: Wind Turbine
It would appear that the efficiency gains come NOT from the actual BTU's of hydrogen that you are adding, but from the effect that the hydrogen has on how the main fuel charge burns.
From http://www.hydrofuelsolutions.com/Go..._releases.html
...a Hydrogen Generating System (HGS) for trucks or cars has been on the market for some time. Mounted on a vehicle, it feeds small amounts of hydrogen and oxygen into the engine's air intake. Its makers claim savings in fuel, reduced noxious and greenhouse gases and increased power. The auto industry is not devoid of hoaxes and as engineers are sceptics by training, it is no surprise that a few of them say the idea won't work. Such opinions, from engineers can't be dismissed without explaining why I think these Hydrogen Generating Systems do work and are not just another hoax. The 2nd law of thermodynamics is a likely source of those doubts. Meaning ...the law -would lead you to believe that it will certainly take more power to produce this hydrogen than can be regained by burning it in the engine. i.e. the resulting energy balance should be negative. If the aim is to create hydrogen by electrolysis to be burned as a fuel, the concept is ridiculous. On the other hand, if hydrogen, shortens the burn time of the main fuel-air mix, putting more pressure on the piston through a longer effective power stroke, and in doing so takes more work out, then this system does make sense. Does it work? Independent studies, at different universities, using various fuels, have shown that flame speeds increase when small amounts of hydrogen are added to air-fuel mixes.
The results of tests at Corrections Canada's, Bowden Alberta Institution and other independent tests reinforce the belief that combustion is significantly accelerated. They found with the HGS on, unburned hydrocarbons, CO and NO, in the exhaust were either eliminated or drastically reduced and at the same R.P.M. the engine produced more torque from less fuel.
Recently I took part in the highway test of a vehicle driven twice over the same 200-kilometre course, on cruise control, at the same speed, once with the system off and once with it on. A temperature sensor from an accurate pyrometer kit had been inserted directly into the exhaust manifold, to eliminate thermal distortion from the catalytic converter. On average, the exhaust manifold temperature was 65°F lower during the second trip when the Hydrogen Generating System was switched on. The fuel consumption with the unit off was 5.13253 km/li. and 7.2481 km/li. with it on, giving a mileage increase of 41.2% and a fuel savings attributable to the unit of 29.18%
>From the forgoing, the near absence of carbon monoxide and unburnt hydrocarbons confirms a very complete and much faster burn. Cooler exhaust temperatures show that more work is taken out during the power stroke. More torque from less fuel at the same R.P.M. verifies that higher pressure from a faster burn, acting through a longer effective power stroke, produces more torque and thus more work from less fuel. The considerable reduction in nitrous oxides (NOx} was a surprise. I had assumed that the extreme temperatures from such a rapid intense burn would produce more NO.,. Time plus high temperature are both essential for nitrous oxides to form. As the extreme burn temperatures are of such short duration and temperature through the remainder of the power stroke and the entire exhaust stroke, will, on average, be much cooler. With this in mind, it is not so surprising that less NOx is produced when the HGS is operating.
An engineering classmate suggested a grass fire as a useful analogy to understand combustion within an engine. The flame front of a grass fire is distinct and its speed depends in part on the closeness of the individual blades. If grass is first sprayed with a small amount of gasoline to initiate combustion, then all blades will ignite almost in unison. In much the same way, small amounts of nascent oxygen and hydrogen present in the fuel-air mix will cause a chain reaction that ignites all the primary fuel molecules simultaneously. Faster more complete burns are the keys to improving efficiency in internal combustion engines. Power gained from increased thermal efficiency, less the power to the electrolysis unit, is the measure of real gain or loss. It follows from the foregoing paragraph that even a modest gain in thermal efficiency will be greater than the power used by an electrolysis unit. The net result should therefore be positive. Thus onboard electrolysis systems supplying hydrogen and oxygen to internal combustion engines, fuelled by diesel, gasoline or propane, should substantially increase efficiencies.
Mixing hydrogen with hydrocarbon fuels provides combustion stimulation by increasing the rate of molecular-cracking processes in which large hydrocarbons are broken into smaller fragments. Expediting production of smaller molecular fragments is beneficial in increasing the surface-to-volume ratio and consequent exposure to oxygen for completion of the combustion process. Relatively small amount of hydrogen can dramatically increase horsepower and reduce emissions of atmospheric pollutants.
This to me seems like a ummm, well not all that efficient.
UI wonder what the cost vs horsepower return rate is, we have three
powers running here
Yes they get power from the engines alternator. That is NOT free power
and far from efficient generation of the power, I wonder what the power
use is, and how much fuel ity's using to make said power,
and if it uses "Distilled Water" where did it come from, and how much
power was used to make it, transport it, and how much is used dragging
it along?
I fail to see how this is a total net positive energy use. when you
factor in all the different power sources used to make it work.
>Truckers Choose Hydrogen Power
>
>http://www.wired.com/cars/energy/news/2005/11/69529
>Hundreds of semitrailer trucks zipping along North American highways are now powered in part by hydrogen. These 18-wheelers make hydrogen as they go, eliminating the need for high-pressure, cryogenic storage tanks or hydrogen filling stations, which, by the way, don't yet exist.
>
>These truckers aren't just do-gooders. They like Canadian Hydrogen Energy's Hydrogen Fuel Injection, or HFI, system because it lets them save fuel, get more horsepower and, as a bonus, cause less pollution.
>
>"We're saving $700 a month per truck on fuel," said Sherwin Fast, president of Great Plains Trucking in Salina, Kansas. The company tried the HFI system on four trucks and has ordered 25 more.
>
>"Drivers like the increased power and noticed there is a lot less black smoke coming out of the stacks," said Fast.
>
>HFI is a bolt-on, aftermarket part that injects small amounts of hydrogen into the engine air intake, said Canadian Hydrogen Energy's Steve Gilchrist. Fuel efficiency and horsepower are improved because hydrogen burns faster and hotter than diesel, dramatically boosting combustion efficiency.
>
>"You get more work from the same amount of fuel," said Gilchrist.
>
>This is not a new idea. The Jet Propulsion Laboratory at the California Institute of Technology published research on the uses of hydrogen as a combustion-enhancing agent in the early 1970s. But the ability to make hydrogen on the go is novel.
>
>The sticking point for hydrogen has always been getting it. Unlike crude oil, natural gas, wind or solar energy, hydrogen doesn't exist freely in nature. It costs $5 a gallon to make hydrogen from natural gas.
>
>But the HFI system uses electricity from an engine's alternator to power the electrolysis of water to produce hydrogen as needed from small amounts of distilled water.
>
>"That's a big advantage and a bit of a novelty," said Venki Raman, an expert on hydrogen-energy applications who started Protium Energy Technologies.
>
>HFI's manufacturer guarantees 10 percent fuel savings, which likely won't interest car companies or consumers, Raman said. But a reduction of pollution emissions could spur broader use.
>
>Trucks with the HFI system produce half the amount of particulates -- microscopic, unburned bits of diesel. The system also reduces nitrogen-oxide emissions, which are major contributors to harmful air pollution, by up to 14 percent, according to Canada's Environmental Technology Verification Program.
>
>The HFI units are relatively small and cost between $4,000 and $14,000, depending on the size of the vehicle.
>
>"It looks like a good transition technology to hydrogen fuel cells, which are still at least 15 years away from commercialization," said Raman.
>
>It will take at least until 2040 before fuel cells begin to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, according to the National Hydrogen Association, Gilchrist pointed out.
>
>"We vehemently disagree with governments picking the fuel cell as the single path to a cleaner environment," he said.
>
>Gilchrist recently argued just this point in meetings with California officials, who are considering buying prototype fuel-cell vehicles that will cost more than $1 million each. That money could buy many HFI systems, which would provide "300 times" the air-pollution reductions of one fuel-cell vehicle, he said
Labels: Wind Turbine
Washington there are a bunch of them. Never
been up close but from miles away they still look impressive. I saw a
blade being transported recently by an 18-wheeler and it was massive up
close. It took an extra-long flatbed to accommodate the length! I don't
know what share of the electrical load they produce but I'm sure PG &E,
our local utility provider has stats on line somewhere.
http://www.oregonwind.com/
Labels: Wind Turbine