[tawnybill]

The Waste

The first thing that comes to my mind is the question that I have about most hydrocarbon combustion. Why continue the waste?

Although the following example uses diesel fuel (because it and heating fuel are nearly the same thing), I see the problem as universal and it applies to any vehicle/ home heating fuel used today, including gasoline, methanol, natural gas, propane and even hydrogen.

In both a diesel engine and home heating furnace, 50% (plus or minus) of the fuel energy is wasted, on a continuous basis.
In the engine, the explosive power of the fuel is used and the heat is discarded, while in the furnace, the heat is used and the torque producing explosive power is defeated.

The specific value for which the fuel energy is purchased to do in one application, is discarded as worthless in the other, and vice versa, is it not?

In terms of efficiency then what is needed is a method to capitalize on the heat to produce additional torque in the vehicle which would increase fuel mileage, and a method that would make use of the torque production potential defeated in the furnace to produce heat would increase its heating fuel efficiency also, right?

How about a similar system that improves both?
I have posted further information on how to achieve this on my website at:
< http://tawnybill.tripod.com/a2zefficenc ... index.html >

This will not solve our hydrocarbon usage, only increase our fuel efficiency and buy us more time, meanwhile reducing GHG pollution and Acid Rain production almost immediately, and on the very vehicle you use every day, or on the furnace that heats your home!

Concepts

"Concepts which have proved useful for ordering things easily assume so great an authority over us, that we forget their terrestrial origin and accept them as unalterable facts. They then become labeled as 'conceptual necessities,' etc. The road of scientific progress is frequently blocked for long periods by such errors." - Einstein

Engineering

A good scientist is a person with original ideas. A good engineer is a person who makes a design that works with as few original ideas as possible. There are no prima donnas in engineering.
Freeman Dyson (b. 1923), British-born U.S. physicist, author. Disturbing the Universe, pt. 1, ch. 10 (1979).13

Cheers,
Tawny Bill.

[rogerhb]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('tawnybill', 'W')hy not stop the WASTE?

[Texas_T]

I don't see your pint exactly.....when you say that half the energy is wasted...

In terms of home heating furnaces/boilers, with gas fired systems, efficiencies of well over 90% can be achieved with ciondensing type systems (boilers or furnaces).

Even older technology oil or gas-fired systems have rated efficiency levels at 80% plus.

[Etalon]

I had a quick look at the website, (and only quick, I need to go to bed).

My initial impressions is, yes some good ideas there, although probably with limited practical applications.

The idea of using the heat generated from a diesel engine is a good one, but only applys in a situation where the heat can be use effectivly. In a car, this would not be practical. How do you intend to use this extra heat to actually do significant amounts of work?

For a house running off a disel generator, it is much more practical. Run the cooling loop of the generator through some radiotors, and try and extract the heat from the exhaust.

I did spot a slip here and there,

"The Isuzu diesel generator produces 12.5 kilowatts per hour using .91 gallons of fuel to do it."

should read "The Isuzu diesel generator produces 12.5 kilowatts using .91 gallons per hour of fuel to do it."

There is no such thing as kw/h of course .


Hang on!

You state that there is "120,000 ‘btus’ per gallon heat content in the fuel".
Then you say that you get "Net heat realized out of .91 gallons of fuel = 212,360 btu".

Somthing there doesnt add up. If you burn a gallon of fuel, you get (according to your data) 120,000btus of heat.

If you use it in a generator, you get say 60,000"btus" of electricity, but then only 60,000btus of heat. You cant end up with more energy than you started with!

I dont know where the problem is in the calculation, and I dont have time to check data/working.

[nethawk]

I understand the point. This is what combined heat and power plants are all about. They use the force of steam to generate electricity, then after that has been taken, the other 2/3 of the energy is heat and is used for space/water/process heating.

In those condensing furnaces, the natural gas flame burns at about 1500 degrees...it's high-value energy that would be suitable for generation of electricity, which is very high-grade energy, but instead it is diluted and used to supply warm air for heating a building, despite the fact that it recovers the latent heat from the water in the flue gases.

On the other hand, we have coal-fired power plants that burn enough coal in their boilers to produce 3 gigawatts of power, but we only ever use 1 GW of that power...because they take the high-grade stuff and throw the low-grade heat away, either via a cooling tower or into a lake/river/ocean.

[tawnybill]

At first I wanted to remove the first poll option, thinking it was ridiculous, however going by the replies, I am surprised that the trend is leaning towards defending the status quo. Interesting…

Change

Change is not made without inconvenience, even from worse to better

Richard Hooker (1554-1600), English theologian. Quoted in: Samuel Johnson, Dictionary of the English Language, Preface (1755).14

Food for thought, just as the concept behind the information on the website is, for the thinkers among the readers…

[Etalon]

tawnybill, can you prove me wrong on what seems to be your incorrect calculation? Its not about the status quo, its about physics.

Using waste heat from electricity generators is a great idea, but your numbers seem to be wrong.

As I said, if the fuel has 120,000btus per gallon of energy, there is no way you can ever get anything more than that.

[tawnybill]

Etalon,

Did I fail to explain, or does it escape you, that the purpose of "Burning" the fuel in the generator was to use the heat content of the fuel AND to "Generate" electricity?.

That energy (the electricity) comes into calculation of the "Total" energy output, in my calculations and is additional to the calorific value of the fuel.

The other thing is, is the concept of nearer to "Full" or at least more complete utilization of the energy potential (both thermal and chemical or explosive energy) not more sensible?

Whether it is just above the 15% in increased efficiency and achieved the , "threshold of viability" needed as a claimed industry minimum to change OEM production lines, or somewhere nearer to the 100% I project, this system has a net "payback" aspect where as most pollution reduction systems have a huge "net cost/loss", and generally present a very negative discrepancy instead.

It might do well to explain here, I don't hold any PhD's either in physics, combustion chemistry, nor English language, so if the "t's" aren't 'dotted' or the "I's" aren’t 'crossed', or the math doesn't agree to a 1% discrepancy, It is hoped that people would look beyond that, and consider rather the greater "Good Sense" of the concept.

The other thing I might make clear, is that although I am not an accredited PhD, I still did experiment in the physical application of these scientific principles and discovered to my surprise that the combustion chemistry had changed under the "new" circumstances and conditions (something I had overlooked). This caused a "TNT" level of detonation out of the fuel charge in the motors’ combustion cylinder and blew up my second test engine as well. (the resulting energy release was many times more than the 'steam' explosion that I had hoped to achieve)

In research on the 'net' for answers to that and I found a report of a study entitled "(1-02) Visual Study on combustion of low-grade fuel water emulsion" from the "Interdisciplinary Graduate School of Engineering Sciences Kyushu University. Kasuga-City Fukuoka Japan" that explains it in depth and substantiates the results of "Water disassociation" and its' effect on combustion chemistry. ( an excellent report containing detailed pictures of the combustion flame characteristics, along with precise calculations showing a 25% increase in fuel efficiency)(This info is available as downloads on my web page; http://tawnybill.tripod.com/a2zefficenc ... /id19.html )

I hope that clarifies some of the “unexplained” and promotes more open minded thinking…maybe up to considering the concept without prejudice?

[Etalon]

You explained that bit fine tawnybill, I do understand the concept (using waste heat from a generator instead of just dumping it into the environment).

What I dont understand is your numbers. I do have some time now, so ill do a quick calculation myself..

Okay.

From a couple of source, I got that the energy content of diesel is about 139,000BTUs per gallon which is very close to what you say of 120,000 I seem to remember. So, lets use your 120,000BTUs/gallon. (I researched it myself just to double check).

Energy output from a furnace:
Your figure of 80% efficiency sounds about right, so if burnt in a furnace you get 96,000BTUs of useful heat.

Electricity output from a generator.
Looking around, im seeing efficiency of 30-45%. Lets use 40%.
Electricity out from 120,000BTUs is 48,000BTU's.

Now this is where you went wrong. You then added the two together, the BTU from the electricity, and the BTU from the furnace and got say 144,000 (using my numbers) which is more energy than the fuel has in the first place. This is incorrect.


------The right way-------
The Electricity generator is 40% efficient. 40% of its energy in goes into electricity, 60% is wasted primarily as heat.

120,000BTUs of energy in, 48,000BTUs ends up as electricity. 72,000BTUs is left over in the form of heat. This can then be used to do something useful, for example heat a house.

Assuming the same efficiency of doing useful heating as was used in the in the furnace example which was 80%. You use 80% of the 72,000BTUs to say heat your house.

So now we have 48,000 as electricity and 57,600 doing useful heating work which gives a grand total of 48,000+57,600=105,600BTUs of useful work.

This means your getting 88% efficiency, a pretty good number.

I 100% agree with the good sense of the concept, but the maths was a lot more out than 1%.

If your getting more energy when you add up the energy out as electricity and energy out as heat than the original calorific content of the fuel, the calculation is wrong. Energy conservation wins all the time.

(sorry for the long post, but I didnt want to skip any of my reasoning)

[dooberheim]

What you're talking about generally is called cogeneration, and the reason it is not practiced more is simply economic.

It is possible to use the waste heat from the turbines of a conventional power plant to boil a low boiling working fluid like a Freon or light hydrocarbon, and have that drive a turbine to produce additional electricity. This can wring another several percent overall efficiency from the process, but coal and uranium have been cheap enough that it hasn't make economic sense to install and maintain the extra equipment.

Some work has been done on what are called "bottoming cycle engines" that will generate extra power for transportation purposes (trucks and locomotives). Same principle - you boil a Freon using the main engine exhaust and use that in a steam engine linked to the drive train using some sort of variable transmission. They could also run a generator.

BTW, a turbocharger gives an efficiency boost in a related way by using the heat and velocity of the exhaust to compress the intake air to an engine. Unfortunately, in cars at least, turbos are usually used for performance rather than economy. In large trucks, a turbocharger will increase the efficiency of a given engine by several percent. Adding a bottoming cycle engine could increase it several more percent.

DK

[tawnybill]

Etalon

I can't seem to place all of the losses that you point out, so maybe I'll explain it in more simple terms;

I live up north where we use furnaces/boilers for heat which is often found in the basement of the home.

If instead of a oil boiler downstairs there was a diesel water cooled marine generator with exhaust cooling all of which were tied into the hotwater heating system.

The example generator I used on the website "Burnt" .91 gallons per hour under full load producing 12.5 kw of electricity (and since it is over the course of an hour it is 12.5 kwh) My electrician buddy says that 10 kw is plenty of electricity for electrical heat in a 1,000 sq ft home up here.

Well I am an industrial gas fitter and know that 100,000 btu is the rule of thumb for furnace sizing here for a 1,000 sq ft house also.

So since there is 12.5kw output from the generator and it burns 138,000 x .91 gallons of fuel it releases 125,580 btu's plenty enough to heat one house on electricity and the other on the calorific heating value of the fuel. The heat extraction off of the generator exhaust is almost 100% because the exhaust is cooled to about 125 degrees.

Now if the generator is enclosed in the building any heat released in it is usable by the building except for the 2-5% lost in the exhaust, that makes it 95-98% (heating fuel) efficient.

As opposed to the boiler with a 6"vent dumping 400 degree combustion products, which makes it about 80% efficient, losing 20% up the stack and it doesn't generate 1 watt of electricityHow could it be even 50% as efficient at using energy than in the other example if the boiler could heat (1) house and the generator arrangement heats (2)?

Seems simple to me...does it make sense to you?

[tawnybill]

Hi dooberheim,

If you are open to learning a little more about engines and proven combustion chemistry, check out the downloads on my website from a Japanese University combustion lab.

It's impressive! 25% increased fuel efficiency, reduced CO and nitrogenoxide, and they ran up to a 40% water/fuel emulsion.

These contain pictures of the actual combustion from both for comparason.

The downloads are on page (7) 'Supporting information' of my site at;
http://tawnybill.tripod.com/a2zefficenc ... index.html

Cheers

[Etalon]

Ohh, I see where the confusion is arising tawnybill! I read your post a few times... and this is the bit which struck me.

"So since there is 12.5kw output from the generator and it burns 138,000 x .91 gallons of fuel it releases 125,580 btu's plenty enough to heat one house on electricity and the other on the calorific heating value of the fuel."

Your assuming, if the fuel is burnt, however its burnt, it releases so much amount of heat energy. Lets assume we have a 100% efficient diesel engine, (wish I did, be a rich man then).

So, you burn your 1 gallon of fuel in this engine. It is 100% efficient, so you get 120,000BTUs of electricity out of it. Your assuming it must also be producing 120,000BTUs of heat (because its burning the fuel).

This assumption is wrong. A mystical 100% efficient diesel engine would produce no heat at all, it wouldn't even get warm. The reason? Although its burning the diesel, it uses the expansion and therefore cooling of the combustion powerstroke to produce the electricity. In a 100% efficient engine, no heat would be left over

A disel engine can produce 10% electricity and 90% heat per unit of fuel, or more likely 40% electricity 60% heat. The more electricity it produces per gallon of fuel, the less heat it makes.


By having the engine inside, as you describe you can capture all the heat produced by the engine, and therefore get 100% electricity/heat efficiency. No more than that though.

[dooberheim]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('tawnybill', 'H')i dooberheim,

If you are open to learning a little more about engines and proven combustion chemistry, check out the downloads on my website from a Japanese University combustion lab.

It's impressive! 25% increased fuel efficiency, reduced CO and nitrogenoxide, and they ran up to a 40% water/fuel emulsion.

These contain pictures of the actual combustion from both for comparason.

The downloads are on page (7) 'Supporting information' of my site at;
http://tawnybill.tripod.com/a2zefficenc ... index.html

Cheers

[dooberheim]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Etalon', 'T')his assumption is wrong. A mystical 100% efficient diesel engine would produce no heat at all, it wouldn't even get warm. The reason? Although its burning the diesel, it uses the expansion and therefore cooling of the combustion powerstroke to produce the electricity. In a 100% efficient engine, no heat would be left over

[tawnybill]

Dooberheim,

Thanks for having an open mind and the scientific curiosity to research this, it is refreshing!

I apologize for the problem with the download, it should be cleared to download, however it is loaded on msn while the web page is yahoo and there might be conflicts there.

As for tests, I blew up my fist test engine and blamed the failure on previous damage, and then I replaced the dynamo with a brand new assembly and this one I blew the head off in less than 6 hours running time. It was then that I was stumped until I researched the 'net' for info and found the report on emulsion tests done at a Japanese University in very close parallel to my experiments.

Since they had carried out such close parallel tests and documented it so well with internal cylinder combustion images while under combustion. Which is much better than I could hope to compile on my own so I have adopted their results to show how fuel combustion is affected by a (additional) water presence.

If you are interested e-mail me, because I also have it in document form that I could attach to an e-mail reply to you.

My e-mail is tawnybill@yahoo.ca

Will'

[Etalon]

Ah yes, you reminded me of my thermodynamics module dooberman, anyway I did use the qualifier of a "mystical" diesel engine At least the wasted energy would go as heat which would used anyway.

And not only would it only get a maximum of only 88% percent efficiency, it would also have to always be in thermodynamic equilibrium to get this, and therefore run infinitely slowly.

[tawnybill]

Check out my web site and the updated download page in regard to the following problem.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') couldn't get into the supporting information - it was protected by a password.

I can see where water injection could increase the efficiency of an engine, by allowing heat that would escape in the exhaust to do work in the engine. Does that result in increased carbon deposits?