Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Just an idea...

Expand Messages
  • jjones277
    In all honesty I ve never been that interested with building a steam powered turbine. Since I ve been working toward increasing fuel economy and lessening
    Message 1 of 17 , Jun 9, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      In all honesty I've never been that interested with building a steam
      powered turbine. Since I've been working toward increasing fuel
      economy and lessening enviromental inpact in vehicles I've, for the
      most part ignored the idea of a steam engine, despite steams
      advantages, for two main reasons. First off I don't like the idea of
      adding a heavy, and potentially unsafe boiler system to my super
      light car design. Second I just don't want the inconvience of having
      to put both water and gas in my car at every filling station. Well
      today while I was taking another cold shower (this buildings boiler
      has all kinds of problems...) I was reminded of something I'd come
      across on the internet a few months ago while working on a methane
      digestor. At www.tankless-water-heaters.com there is a water heating
      system that uses electical heating elements to heat water instantly
      and that got me thinking about the steam engine again. If there was
      sufficent electrical power on board to run the heating elements then
      the need for a primary power source (such as a fossil fuel, or in my
      design ethanol) could either be reduced or removed completely. We
      can easily get the power needed to run the heating elements, by
      putting a generator on one end of the turbines axle, which means that
      the only weak point of this whole proposal (for the time being
      anyways...) is where do we get the neccessary power to start the
      whole system initially? I've thought of a few possiblites, although
      I'm still not to happy with any of them. The first is to find
      someone that can build a heating element that uses less voltage and
      current (I'm not holding my breath though...). The secound is to use
      a small combustion chamber powered by some fuel (either a fossil fuel
      or ethanol, but I'm not ruling out others...) that will get the
      turbine spinning intially and start heating the water. There are
      others, but these are the two most practical that I've come up with.

      I'd be very interested in hearing anyones opinions or ideas
      concerning this as long as they are constructive and not critical.
      Like I said this is all something that I just thought of while taking
      a shower about an hour ago.

      Jon
    • Barry Turner
      Hi Jon The correct url is http://www.tankless-water-heater.com/ its derived from a spin-off from NASA technology
      Message 2 of 17 , Jun 9, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Jon
         
        The correct url is http://www.tankless-water-heater.com/ its derived from a spin-off from NASA technology http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/spinoff1997/ch10.html
         
        A similar proposal was made on this list using a Griggs Hydrosonic Pump US5957122 patent connect to a common shaft with a TT to produce steam for a Tesla Turbine and start the cycle going with a conventional starter motor.
         
        See this article on the Griggs Hydrosonic Pump http://www.alternativescience.com/over-unity.htm
         
        Regards
         
         
        Barry
        ----- Original Message ----- 
        From: jjones277
        Sent: Sunday, June 09, 2002 9:44 PM
        Subject: [TeslaTurbine] Just an idea...

        In all honesty I've never been that interested with building a steam
        powered turbine.  Since I've been working toward increasing fuel
        economy and lessening enviromental inpact in vehicles I've, for the
        most part ignored the idea of a steam engine, despite steams
        advantages, for two main reasons.  First off I don't like the idea of
        adding a heavy, and potentially unsafe boiler system to my super
        light car design.  Second I just don't want the inconvience of having
        to put both water and gas in my car at every filling station.  Well
        today while I was taking another cold shower (this buildings boiler
        has all kinds of problems...) I was reminded of something I'd come
        across on the internet a few months ago while working on a methane
        digestor.  At www.tankless-water-heaters.com there is a water heating
        system that uses electical heating elements to heat water instantly
        and that got me thinking about the steam engine again.  If there was
        sufficent electrical power on board to run the heating elements then
        the need for a primary power source (such as a fossil fuel, or in my
        design ethanol) could either be reduced or removed completely.  We
        can easily get the power needed to run the heating elements, by
        putting a generator on one end of the turbines axle, which means that
        the only weak point of this whole proposal (for the time being
        anyways...) is where do we get the neccessary power to start the
        whole system initially?  I've thought of a few possiblites, although
        I'm still not to happy with any of them.  The first is to find
        someone that can build a heating element that uses less voltage and
        current (I'm not holding my breath though...).  The secound is to use
        a small combustion chamber powered by some fuel (either a fossil fuel
        or ethanol, but I'm not ruling out others...) that will get the
        turbine spinning intially and start heating the water.  There are
        others, but these are the two most practical that I've come up with.

        I'd be very interested in hearing anyones opinions or ideas
        concerning this as long as they are constructive and not critical. 
        Like I said this is all something that I just thought of while taking
        a shower about an hour ago. 

        Jon


        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
      • DeLesley Hutchins
        ... If there is sufficient electrical power on board then you will waste it by converting it to heat. An electric motor can convert electricity to kinetic
        Message 3 of 17 , Jun 10, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          > and that got me thinking about the steam engine again. If there was
          > sufficent electrical power on board to run the heating elements then

          If there is sufficient electrical power on board then you will waste it by
          converting it to heat. An electric motor can convert electricity to kinetic
          energy with about 95% efficiency. A heat engine has a theoretical maximum
          efficiency (I believe) of about 50% -- depending on which thermodynamic
          cycle you use -- and modern steam power plants run surprisingly close to
          that. A car engine can run at up to 30%, but it incurs huge throttling
          losses during cruise.

          The only reason to use a heat engine is if your power source can be easily
          converted to heat, but not electricity. This is true of all fossil fuels.
          It is also true of alternative "man-made" fuels. For instance, it would be
          easy to construct a steam engine that burned aluminum to form aluminum
          oxide. Since both the fuel and combustion products are solid there would be
          no exhaust -- it would be a true zero emissions vehicle. The aluminum oxide
          would kept in the car until time to trade it for more aluminum at a fueling
          station, which would, in turn, take the oxide back to be processed into
          aluminum again. The scenario is similar to a hydrogen <--> water energy
          cycle, except that aluminum has a much higher power density, and no storage
          problems. A solid-fuel/heat-engine vehicle may be less efficient, but it
          will still have a much longer range than a hydrogen-fuel-cell/electric
          vehicle. I'm sure there are other "synthetic" fuels that we could use on a
          reversible cycle, but the system requires a clean source electricity such as
          fusion power in order to have any benefit.

          Another good source of energy that is a candidate for a heat engine is,
          interestingly enough, sunlight. Heat engines are still more efficient power
          converters than solar cells, and mirrors are much cheaper to boot. An
          interesting project in my mind would be a solar powered car which used
          mirrors, a boiler, and a steam turbine to run. Any takers? :-)

          -DeLesley Hutchins
        • Mike Passerotti
          Nice thought about aluminum. I m definately planning to toy with solar. I intend to use fresnel lense collector for a flash steam boiler. Somewhere down the
          Message 4 of 17 , Jun 10, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            Nice thought about aluminum.

            I'm definately planning to toy with solar. I intend to use fresnel lense
            collector for a flash steam boiler. Somewhere down the road, when I have
            time. That idea 'holds water' on stationary machines, but not so good on
            vehicles. I also thought of water dissassociation using the power of the
            sun, but, the quality of a collector/culminator to concentrate the suns rays
            to a small enough, high power enough spot is beyond financial reach and
            difficult to setup in an outdoor environment. Dissassociation - splitting
            water 2H2O into H2 + 2O2 by adding high temperature and moving it to a cool
            area fast enough to prevent immediate reassociation/combustion. Last I read
            that method is more efficient than electrolosys and has a higher energy
            density output than simple steam. Don't know for certain though. Thats why
            I'll start with the lowest cost and least dangerous production of steam.

            Mike Passerotti


            -----Original Message-----
            From: DeLesley Hutchins
            Subject: Re: [TeslaTurbine] Just an idea...



            > and that got me thinking about the steam engine again. If there was
            > sufficent electrical power on board to run the heating elements then

            If there is sufficient electrical power on board then you will waste it by
            converting it to heat. An electric motor can convert electricity to kinetic
            energy with about 95% efficiency. A heat engine has a theoretical maximum
            efficiency (I believe) of about 50% -- depending on which thermodynamic
            cycle you use -- and modern steam power plants run surprisingly close to
            that. A car engine can run at up to 30%, but it incurs huge throttling
            losses during cruise.

            The only reason to use a heat engine is if your power source can be easily
            converted to heat, but not electricity. This is true of all fossil fuels.
            It is also true of alternative "man-made" fuels. For instance, it would be
            easy to construct a steam engine that burned aluminum to form aluminum
            oxide. Since both the fuel and combustion products are solid there would be
            no exhaust -- it would be a true zero emissions vehicle. The aluminum oxide
            would kept in the car until time to trade it for more aluminum at a fueling
            station, which would, in turn, take the oxide back to be processed into
            aluminum again. The scenario is similar to a hydrogen <--> water energy
            cycle, except that aluminum has a much higher power density, and no storage
            problems. A solid-fuel/heat-engine vehicle may be less efficient, but it
            will still have a much longer range than a hydrogen-fuel-cell/electric
            vehicle. I'm sure there are other "synthetic" fuels that we could use on a
            reversible cycle, but the system requires a clean source electricity such as
            fusion power in order to have any benefit.

            Another good source of energy that is a candidate for a heat engine is,
            interestingly enough, sunlight. Heat engines are still more efficient power
            converters than solar cells, and mirrors are much cheaper to boot. An
            interesting project in my mind would be a solar powered car which used
            mirrors, a boiler, and a steam turbine to run. Any takers? :-)

            -DeLesley Hutchins






            Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
          • DeLesley Hutchins
            ... The main advantage of aluminum is that the infrastructure for processing aluminum oxide is already in place. Aluminum is problematic, however, in that it
            Message 5 of 17 , Jun 11, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              > Nice thought about aluminum.

              The main advantage of aluminum is that the infrastructure for processing
              aluminum oxide is already in place. Aluminum is problematic, however, in
              that it can only be burned, which means the energy losses of the heat engine
              get multiplied by the energy cost of processing aluminum oxide. Moreover,
              it is completely useless for low-power devices like laptops. Hydrogen would
              seem to be a more efficient storage medium as far as power is concerned
              (electrolysis + fuel cells), but it must either be stored cyrogenically, or
              manipulated as a compressed gas, which provides very poor range for
              vehicles. The energy cost of either compression or cooling can easily
              exceed the efficiency gains. The energy of compression can be regained if
              it is burnt in a heat engine, but in a fuel cell that energy is lost.
              Either way you only get out a fraction of what you put in.

              The ideal solution would be to use a solid or liquid designer fuel that
              could be easily synthesized from a cheap power source, but could then be
              broken apart in a fuel cell to generate electricity. Such a fuel could
              replace batteries as an energy storage device, and would be far more
              efficient than fossil fuels. Methanol is a possibility if we can synthesize
              it from water and carbon, but any complex chemical makes synthesis more
              difficult. Anyone want a Nobel Prize for Chemistry?

              -DeLesley Hutchins
            • Mike Passerotti
              I have a friend working on NASA s high flying solar powered unmanned electric airplane. He s researching the whole energy storage systems you re refering to.
              Message 6 of 17 , Jun 11, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                I have a friend working on NASA's high flying solar powered unmanned
                electric airplane. He's researching the whole energy storage systems you're
                refering to. He told me that the conclusion so far is that hydrogen fuel
                cells are the highest energy density storage, best opperating temperature
                range, best opperation pressure range, and the lowest weight to charge
                density. They recently took the plane over 120,000 feet. The drawback is
                the energy efficiency of converting water to H2 by electrolisys. So they
                have to store more energy to stay aloft and the number of days will continue
                to be limited. They're looking at converting every available hollow space
                into a hydrogen storage tank. (very expensive)

                They're close to 24 hr flights using renewable stored energy at night.
                However, that only powers the plane. The really big hurtle is to provide
                enough power to the payload day and night.

                If my friend or his team pulls this off, they might just be canidates for
                the prize.

                Mike Passerotti

                -----Original Message-----
                From: DeLesley Hutchins [mailto:hutchins@...]
                Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 3:26 PM
                To: TeslaTurbine@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: Re: [TeslaTurbine] Just an idea...



                > Nice thought about aluminum.

                The main advantage of aluminum is that the infrastructure for processing
                aluminum oxide is already in place. Aluminum is problematic, however, in
                that it can only be burned, which means the energy losses of the heat engine
                get multiplied by the energy cost of processing aluminum oxide. Moreover,
                it is completely useless for low-power devices like laptops. Hydrogen would
                seem to be a more efficient storage medium as far as power is concerned
                (electrolysis + fuel cells), but it must either be stored cyrogenically, or
                manipulated as a compressed gas, which provides very poor range for
                vehicles. The energy cost of either compression or cooling can easily
                exceed the efficiency gains. The energy of compression can be regained if
                it is burnt in a heat engine, but in a fuel cell that energy is lost.
                Either way you only get out a fraction of what you put in.

                The ideal solution would be to use a solid or liquid designer fuel that
                could be easily synthesized from a cheap power source, but could then be
                broken apart in a fuel cell to generate electricity. Such a fuel could
                replace batteries as an energy storage device, and would be far more
                efficient than fossil fuels. Methanol is a possibility if we can synthesize
                it from water and carbon, but any complex chemical makes synthesis more
                difficult. Anyone want a Nobel Prize for Chemistry?

                -DeLesley Hutchins







                Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
              • Barry Turner
                Hi Perhaps you should look at HOD (hydrogen on demand). http://www.keelynet.com/energy/cornish.htm http://www.layo.com/
                Message 7 of 17 , Jun 11, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hi
                   
                  Perhaps you should look at HOD (hydrogen on demand).
                   
                   
                   
                  Regards
                   
                   
                  Barry
                  ----- Original Message -----
                  Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 8:42 PM
                  Subject: RE: [TeslaTurbine] Just an idea...

                  I have a friend working on NASA's high flying solar powered unmanned
                  electric airplane.  He's researching the whole energy storage systems you're
                  refering to.  He told me that the conclusion so far is that hydrogen fuel
                  cells are the highest energy density storage, best opperating temperature
                  range, best opperation pressure range, and the lowest weight to charge
                  density.  They recently took the plane over 120,000 feet.  The drawback is
                  the energy efficiency of converting water to H2 by electrolisys.  So they
                  have to store more energy to stay aloft and the number of days will continue
                  to be limited.  They're looking at converting every available hollow space
                  into a hydrogen storage tank. (very expensive)

                  They're close to 24 hr flights using renewable stored energy at night.
                  However, that only powers the plane.  The really big hurtle is to provide
                  enough power to the payload day and night.

                  If my friend or his team pulls this off, they might just be canidates for
                  the prize.

                  Mike Passerotti

                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: DeLesley Hutchins [mailto:hutchins@...]
                  Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 3:26 PM
                  To: TeslaTurbine@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: Re: [TeslaTurbine] Just an idea...



                  > Nice thought about aluminum.

                  The main advantage of aluminum is that the infrastructure for processing
                  aluminum oxide is already in place.  Aluminum is problematic, however, in
                  that it can only be burned, which means the energy losses of the heat engine
                  get multiplied by the energy cost of processing aluminum oxide.  Moreover,
                  it is completely useless for low-power devices like laptops.  Hydrogen would
                  seem to be a more efficient storage medium as far as power is concerned
                  (electrolysis + fuel cells), but it must either be stored cyrogenically, or
                  manipulated as a compressed gas, which provides very poor range for
                  vehicles.  The energy cost of either compression or cooling can easily
                  exceed the efficiency gains.  The energy of compression can be regained if
                  it is burnt in a heat engine, but in a fuel cell that energy is lost.
                  Either way you only get out a fraction of what you put in.

                  The ideal solution would be to use a solid or liquid designer fuel that
                  could be easily synthesized from a cheap power source, but could then be
                  broken apart in a fuel cell to generate electricity.  Such a fuel could
                  replace batteries as an energy storage device, and would be far more
                  efficient than fossil fuels.  Methanol is a possibility if we can synthesize
                  it from water and carbon, but any complex chemical makes synthesis more
                  difficult.  Anyone want a Nobel Prize for Chemistry?

                      -DeLesley Hutchins







                  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


                  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                • Mike Passerotti
                  Aluminum as a sacrificial metal is a good idea. There is the Brown gas made with sacrificial carbon. But the high acid content is difficult to deal with.
                  Message 8 of 17 , Jun 12, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Aluminum as a sacrificial metal is a good idea. There is the Brown gas made
                    with sacrificial carbon. But the high acid content is difficult to deal
                    with. Sounds like AL doesn't make a high acid content. I could picture
                    myself driving into the gas station, buying a soda, drinking the soda and
                    dropping the can into the handy dandy can shredder that pulverizes the can
                    and feeds it into a roller that makes a feed wire for use by the hydrogen
                    generator.

                    The water as fuel looks like a spin off of Beaty (sp?) who 'rings' water to
                    improve efficiency of electrolisys. I want to reproduce that experiment. I
                    think that has the most potential. Water makes a great fuel. Hydrogen and
                    oxygen are not tightly bound. Thats why life works. One chemist described
                    water as the accidental and barely there bond.

                    Finding the key to unlock water to get heat energy is almost there. Too bad
                    big industry isn't looking for the key.

                    For all of those reasons, the TT is a great engine. I can make the engine
                    with an external combustion chamber (external to the engine). Then as I
                    find better fuels and better burners, the external parts can be changed out
                    with minimal work. Start with compressed air, switch to propane or natural
                    gas, then to hydrogen.

                    Too many ideas, too little time.

                    Mike Passerotti

                    -----Original Message-----
                    From: Barry Turner [mailto:btba09418@...]
                    Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 7:39 PM
                    To: TeslaTurbine@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: Re: [TeslaTurbine] Just an idea...


                    Hi

                    Perhaps you should look at HOD (hydrogen on demand).

                    http://www.keelynet.com/energy/cornish.htm
                    <http://www.keelynet.com/energy/cornish.htm>
                    http://www.layo.com/ <http://www.layo.com/>

                    http://www.fortunecity.com/greenfield/bp/16/waterasfuel.htm
                    <http://www.fortunecity.com/greenfield/bp/16/waterasfuel.htm>

                    Regards


                    Barry

                    ----- Original Message -----
                    From: Mike <mailto:mpasserotti@...> Passerotti
                    To: 'TeslaTurbine@yahoogroups.com' <mailto:'TeslaTurbine@yahoogroups.com'>
                    Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 8:42 PM
                    Subject: RE: [TeslaTurbine] Just an idea...

                    I have a friend working on NASA's high flying solar powered unmanned
                    electric airplane. He's researching the whole energy storage systems you're
                    refering to. He told me that the conclusion so far is that hydrogen fuel
                    cells are the highest energy density storage, best opperating temperature
                    range, best opperation pressure range, and the lowest weight to charge
                    density. They recently took the plane over 120,000 feet. The drawback is
                    the energy efficiency of converting water to H2 by electrolisys. So they
                    have to store more energy to stay aloft and the number of days will continue
                    to be limited. They're looking at converting every available hollow space
                    into a hydrogen storage tank. (very expensive)

                    They're close to 24 hr flights using renewable stored energy at night.
                    However, that only powers the plane. The really big hurtle is to provide
                    enough power to the payload day and night.

                    If my friend or his team pulls this off, they might just be canidates for
                    the prize.

                    Mike Passerotti

                    -----Original Message-----
                    From: DeLesley Hutchins [mailto:hutchins@...]
                    Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 3:26 PM
                    To: TeslaTurbine@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: Re: [TeslaTurbine] Just an idea...



                    > Nice thought about aluminum.

                    The main advantage of aluminum is that the infrastructure for processing
                    aluminum oxide is already in place. Aluminum is problematic, however, in
                    that it can only be burned, which means the energy losses of the heat engine
                    get multiplied by the energy cost of processing aluminum oxide. Moreover,
                    it is completely useless for low-power devices like laptops. Hydrogen would
                    seem to be a more efficient storage medium as far as power is concerned
                    (electrolysis + fuel cells), but it must either be stored cyrogenically, or
                    manipulated as a compressed gas, which provides very poor range for
                    vehicles. The energy cost of either compression or cooling can easily
                    exceed the efficiency gains. The energy of compression can be regained if
                    it is burnt in a heat engine, but in a fuel cell that energy is lost.
                    Either way you only get out a fraction of what you put in.

                    The ideal solution would be to use a solid or liquid designer fuel that
                    could be easily synthesized from a cheap power source, but could then be
                    broken apart in a fuel cell to generate electricity. Such a fuel could
                    replace batteries as an energy storage device, and would be far more
                    efficient than fossil fuels. Methanol is a possibility if we can synthesize
                    it from water and carbon, but any complex chemical makes synthesis more
                    difficult. Anyone want a Nobel Prize for Chemistry?

                    -DeLesley Hutchins







                    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                    <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>


                    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
                    <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .



                    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
                    <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
                  • DeLesley Hutchins
                    ... you re I was reading about that project just the other day. Very cool. ... Hydrogen is great for a lot of things. The energy/weight ratio is the best of
                    Message 9 of 17 , Jun 12, 2002
                    • 0 Attachment
                      > I have a friend working on NASA's high flying solar powered unmanned
                      > electric airplane. He's researching the whole energy storage systems
                      you're

                      I was reading about that project just the other day. Very cool.

                      > refering to. He told me that the conclusion so far is that hydrogen fuel
                      > cells are the highest energy density storage, best opperating temperature
                      > range, best opperation pressure range, and the lowest weight to charge

                      Hydrogen is great for a lot of things. The energy/weight ratio is the best
                      of any chemical fuel, period, which is why it's used as rocket fuel. (The
                      oxygen is what's heavy.) Hydrogen is also great for homes, since it can be
                      sent over the existing natural gas lines, and it's much less toxic.
                      Unfortunately, its energy/volume ratio is much poorer than gasoline, even
                      with liquid H2. In liquid form the problem is manageable, but liquid
                      hydrogen is a pain to deal with. Compressed hydrogen gas takes up so much
                      space that range for an automobile would be very limited -- about the same
                      as for electric cars -- unless it carried a truly huge tank.

                      An airplane has a lot of empty space in the wings -- especially the solar
                      design that your friend is working on, and weight is critical, so hydrogen
                      is far and away the best fuel. The solar aircraft also generates its own
                      hydrogen on board, so "range" has a very different meaning. For a car,
                      however, the situation is reversed; something heavy and dense like gasoline
                      makes a much better fuel.

                      -DeLesley Hutchins
                    • DeLesley Hutchins
                      ... An interesting idea. I admit that I was thinking of buring aluminum directly -- but reacting it indirectly to produce H2 accomplishes the same thing, and
                      Message 10 of 17 , Jun 12, 2002
                      • 0 Attachment
                        > Perhaps you should look at HOD (hydrogen on demand).

                        An interesting idea. I admit that I was thinking of buring aluminum
                        directly -- but reacting it indirectly to produce H2 accomplishes the same
                        thing, and creates same by-products. I can think of only one problem:

                        Aluminum is expensive. It takes one aluminum atom to create two hydrogen
                        atoms, which means the the amount of aluminum required for a trip would be
                        about the same as a full tank of gas. 60 pounds of aluminum would be a lot
                        of $$$, so the reprocessing infrastructure I described earlier would still
                        need to be in place. On the plus side, the H2 could drive fuel cells with
                        much better economy than burning the aluminum outright.

                        -DeLesley Hutchins
                      • fred mcgalliard
                        1. Aluminum is basically the price of the electrical power, bought at a big discount, used to make it, plus a small amount for the rock. Expensive compared to
                        Message 11 of 17 , Jun 12, 2002
                        • 0 Attachment
                          1. Aluminum is basically the price of the electrical power, bought at a big
                          discount, used to make it, plus a small amount for the rock. Expensive
                          compared to fuel oil, but not for equivalent hydrogen produced say from your
                          home electrical power.

                          2. When you burn aluminum in water, you get both heat and hydrogen. You need
                          to capture both to get your money's worth.

                          3. You might be able to construct a rechargable aluminum air cell and avoid
                          some of the losses of a more complex hydrogen conversion.

                          4. Burning aluminum in air can produce aluminum oxide rather than aluminum
                          hydroxide. Aluminum oxide is sapphire, hard as can be, insoluble and quite
                          challenging to convert back into aluminum. Aluminum hydroxide hydrate,
                          produced by burning/reacting in water, is pretty easy to disolve for
                          conversion.


                          >From: "DeLesley Hutchins" <hutchins@...>
                          >Reply-To: TeslaTurbine@yahoogroups.com
                          >To: <TeslaTurbine@yahoogroups.com>
                          >Subject: Re: [TeslaTurbine] Just an idea...
                          >Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 11:09:21 -0500
                          >
                          >
                          > > Perhaps you should look at HOD (hydrogen on demand).
                          >
                          >An interesting idea. I admit that I was thinking of buring aluminum
                          >directly -- but reacting it indirectly to produce H2 accomplishes the same
                          >thing, and creates same by-products. I can think of only one problem:
                          >
                          >Aluminum is expensive. It takes one aluminum atom to create two hydrogen
                          >atoms, which means the the amount of aluminum required for a trip would be
                          >about the same as a full tank of gas. 60 pounds of aluminum would be a lot
                          >of $$$, so the reprocessing infrastructure I described earlier would still
                          >need to be in place. On the plus side, the H2 could drive fuel cells with
                          >much better economy than burning the aluminum outright.
                          >
                          > -DeLesley Hutchins
                          >
                          >
                          >


                          _________________________________________________________________
                          Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
                        • Mike Passerotti
                          Thanks Fred. Didn t know about aluminum hydroxide. Isn t it extremely alkaline? Mike Passerotti ... From: fred mcgalliard [mailto:fbmcgalliard@hotmail.com]
                          Message 12 of 17 , Jun 12, 2002
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Thanks Fred. Didn't know about aluminum hydroxide. Isn't it extremely
                            alkaline?

                            Mike Passerotti


                            -----Original Message-----
                            From: fred mcgalliard [mailto:fbmcgalliard@...]
                            Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 2:32 PM
                            To: TeslaTurbine@yahoogroups.com
                            Subject: Re: [TeslaTurbine] Just an idea...


                            1. Aluminum is basically the price of the electrical power, bought at a big
                            discount, used to make it, plus a small amount for the rock. Expensive
                            compared to fuel oil, but not for equivalent hydrogen produced say from your

                            home electrical power.

                            2. When you burn aluminum in water, you get both heat and hydrogen. You need

                            to capture both to get your money's worth.

                            3. You might be able to construct a rechargable aluminum air cell and avoid
                            some of the losses of a more complex hydrogen conversion.

                            4. Burning aluminum in air can produce aluminum oxide rather than aluminum
                            hydroxide. Aluminum oxide is sapphire, hard as can be, insoluble and quite
                            challenging to convert back into aluminum. Aluminum hydroxide hydrate,
                            produced by burning/reacting in water, is pretty easy to disolve for
                            conversion.
                          • fred b mcgalliard
                            Aluminum hydroxide dissolves in alkaline or acid solutions, but they do not have to be very strong. My chemistry text describes it as a feeble base but says it
                            Message 13 of 17 , Jun 12, 2002
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Aluminum hydroxide dissolves in alkaline or acid solutions, but they do not have to be very strong. My chemistry text describes it as a feeble base but says it is almost insoluble in water (PH=7) so I think, what is the point. Since we want it dissolved we have to add acid or base till it dissolves. Not sure exactly how strong this has to be to dissolve it, so the solution would be either strongly (more or less) acid or base.
                              ----- Original Message -----
                              Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 12:16 PM
                              Subject: RE: [TeslaTurbine] Just an idea...

                              Thanks Fred.  Didn't know about aluminum hydroxide.  Isn't it extremely
                              alkaline?

                              Mike Passerotti
                            • DeLesley Hutchins
                              ... need ... Not a problem. Run the solution through a heat exchanger to preheat the water for a steam turbine before it enters the hydrogen-powered boiler.
                              Message 14 of 17 , Jun 12, 2002
                              • 0 Attachment
                                > 2. When you burn aluminum in water, you get both heat and hydrogen. You
                                need
                                > to capture both to get your money's worth.

                                Not a problem. Run the solution through a heat exchanger to preheat the
                                water for a steam turbine before it enters the hydrogen-powered boiler.
                                That pre-heat stage is the main inefficiency of any Rankine cycle engine,
                                and is thus a common place to dump low-level waste heat.

                                > Burning aluminum in air can produce aluminum oxide rather than aluminum
                                > hydroxide. Aluminum oxide is sapphire, hard as can be, insoluble and quite
                                > challenging to convert back into aluminum.

                                And yet aluminum oxide is what the aluminum industry currently processes to
                                get commercial Al. I don't know what percentage of the cost is the
                                processing, and what percentage is the mining and initial refining, but if
                                pure corrundum (Al02) is available in bulk through a recycling program, the
                                cost of fuel-grade aluminum might drop considerably. I do know that an
                                electrolysis-like process is used to obtain the pure metal.

                                > Aluminum hydroxide hydrate, produced by burning/reacting in water,
                                > is pretty easy to disolve for conversion.

                                Even better. Could it be converted by a small home reactor, or would it
                                still take an industrial processing plant? If the former, then a test
                                vehicle (e.g. electric car) could be built and operated without a huge
                                infrastructure, thus potentially changing this from a pipe dream to a
                                plausible option. :-)

                                -DeLesley
                              • fred b mcgalliard
                                1. Heat capture from an aluminum water reaction. To run this efficiently we may need to run it a lot hotter than is easy to achieve. We are not capturing just
                                Message 15 of 17 , Jun 13, 2002
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  1. Heat capture from an aluminum water reaction. To run this efficiently we may need to run it a lot hotter than is easy to achieve. We are not capturing just heat, but entropy. I think the natural full capture temperature for this reaction might be as high as 500C, and I don't know what this will do the aluminum/water reaction. My fear is that it will shift it to aluminum oxide rather than the hydroxide.
                                   
                                  2. Bauxite seems to be aluminum hydroxide, not oxide. I have no information on aluminum recovery from any form of aluminum oxide.
                                   
                                  3. I think it is pretty easy to reform aluminum from aluminum hydroxide. It has been a while since I looked at the process. Try a standard chemistry text.
                                   
                                  ----- Original Message -----
                                  Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 4:46 PM
                                  Subject: Re: [TeslaTurbine] Just an idea...


                                  > 2. When you burn aluminum in water, you get both heat and hydrogen. You
                                  need
                                  > to capture both to get your money's worth.

                                  Not a problem.  Run the solution through a heat exchanger to preheat the
                                  water for a steam turbine before it enters the hydrogen-powered boiler.
                                  That pre-heat stage is the main inefficiency of any Rankine cycle engine,
                                  and is thus a common place to dump low-level waste heat.

                                  > Burning aluminum in air can produce aluminum oxide rather than aluminum
                                  > hydroxide. Aluminum oxide is sapphire, hard as can be, insoluble and quite
                                  > challenging to convert back into aluminum.

                                  And yet aluminum oxide is what the aluminum industry currently processes to
                                  get commercial Al.  I don't know what percentage of the cost is the
                                  processing, and what percentage is the mining and initial refining, but if
                                  pure corrundum (Al02) is available in bulk through a recycling program, the
                                  cost of fuel-grade aluminum might drop considerably.  I do know that an
                                  electrolysis-like process is used to obtain the pure metal.

                                  > Aluminum hydroxide hydrate, produced by burning/reacting in water,
                                  > is pretty easy to disolve for conversion.

                                  Even better.  Could it be converted by a small home reactor, or would it
                                  still take an industrial processing plant?  If the former, then a test
                                  vehicle (e.g. electric car) could be built and operated without a huge
                                  infrastructure, thus potentially changing this from a pipe dream to a
                                  plausible option.  :-)

                                      -DeLesley




                                  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                                • DeLesley Hutchins
                                  I found a decent discussion of modern aluminum processing techniques at: http://electrochem.cwru.edu/ed/encycl/art-a01-al-prod.htm Aluminum is currently
                                  Message 16 of 17 , Jun 16, 2002
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    I found a decent discussion of modern aluminum processing techniques at:

                                    http://electrochem.cwru.edu/ed/encycl/art-a01-al-prod.htm

                                    Aluminum is currently produced in a two-stage process. The Bayer process is
                                    first used to extract pure aluminum oxide (alumina/corundum/sapphire) from
                                    bauxite ore. Any aluminum hydroxide is calcined to remove the water -- so
                                    it doesn't look like aluminum hydroxide is currently used directly as part
                                    of the manufacturing process.

                                    Aluminum oxide is then converted to aluminum via electrolysis in a bath of
                                    molten cryolite. This involves large amounts of both heat and electricity.
                                    The current method uses consumable carbon annodes, which creates the
                                    reaction alumina + carbon => aluminum + carbon dioxide. This is somewhat
                                    disappointing, since it means that a "zero emissions" vehicle would really
                                    just transfer emissions to the processing plant. However, there are a
                                    number of non-carbon annodes currently undergoing research, which would
                                    result in an "emissionless" alumina => aluminum + oxygen reaction.

                                    I still haven't found any way to process aluminum oxide or hydroxide in my
                                    kitchen. :-)

                                    -DeLesley
                                  • McGalliard, Frederick B
                                    Hi. Just looked it up in my old inorganic chemistry text. You could try dissolving the hydroxide in hydrochloric acid, then cooking off the liquid. The solid
                                    Message 17 of 17 , Jun 17, 2002
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Hi. Just looked it up in my old inorganic chemistry text. You could try
                                      dissolving the hydroxide in hydrochloric acid, then cooking off the liquid.
                                      The solid aluminum chloride left, perhaps with sodium chloride and sodium
                                      carbonate could make a low enough melting electrolyte to allow simple
                                      electrolysis, perhaps a bit like what Bunsen used in 1854? I note that the
                                      commercial processes use a lot of very high temperature steps and include a
                                      lot of fluorides. I am not too sure I would want to do that in a home
                                      reactant recovery process.

                                      -----Original Message-----
                                      From: DeLesley Hutchins [mailto:hutchins@...]
                                      Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2002 9:17 AM
                                      To: TeslaTurbine@yahoogroups.com
                                      Subject: Re: [TeslaTurbine] Just an idea...



                                      I found a decent discussion of modern aluminum processing techniques at:

                                      http://electrochem.cwru.edu/ed/encycl/art-a01-al-prod.htm

                                      Aluminum is currently produced in a two-stage process. The Bayer process is
                                      first used to extract pure aluminum oxide (alumina/corundum/sapphire) from
                                      bauxite ore. Any aluminum hydroxide is calcined to remove the water -- so
                                      it doesn't look like aluminum hydroxide is currently used directly as part
                                      of the manufacturing process.

                                      Aluminum oxide is then converted to aluminum via electrolysis in a bath of
                                      molten cryolite. This involves large amounts of both heat and electricity.
                                      The current method uses consumable carbon annodes, which creates the
                                      reaction alumina + carbon => aluminum + carbon dioxide. This is somewhat
                                      disappointing, since it means that a "zero emissions" vehicle would really
                                      just transfer emissions to the processing plant. However, there are a
                                      number of non-carbon annodes currently undergoing research, which would
                                      result in an "emissionless" alumina => aluminum + oxygen reaction.

                                      I still haven't found any way to process aluminum oxide or hydroxide in my
                                      kitchen. :-)

                                      -DeLesley







                                      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.