RE: 4 Stroke Redesigned

[PhillipM]

GreenV8S said:

I'm pretty sure this entire thread is an exceptionally long lead up to a Rick Roll.

I'm just sorry after 17 years he still hasn't managed to get the psychological help he needs, if anything was a cry for help it's his threads like this all over the 'net.

[Feliks]

Feliks said:

Could someone haul me an iceberg in the ocean to the shore for me to convert it to electricity? After all, it has melted uselessly so far ...

Do you know how much fresh water would be by the way?



Andrew

Well, what if, apart from water, you could get electricity that could also be used to power the tugs? And if there was a lot of it, you can also make gas from it .. But you would have to stop playing hide and seek and enter the appropriate name in the Encyclopedia .. Well, unless you still want to pretend to be smarter...

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20180918-the-ou...

Andrew

[Feliks]

This year, they also participate in such a competition .. There are several links together too ..

https://contest.techbriefs.com/2022/entries/automo...

Andrew

[Feliks]

Feliks said:

Here again, I will remind you of my newest engine and describe how you should use it:
You buy a Tesla car without a battery for 1/4 of its price, you assemble it for several dozen dollars, my last engine to give electricity to Tesla from pieces of ice that you take from your refrigerator .. and you go away. When the ice runs out, you buy it at the gas station and feed it to Tesla again .. No idiotic waiting for it to recharge ..

https://youtu.be/02OTC6ac8NI?t=107

Well, why would someone need an outdated gasoline engine?

Andrew

And this ice has a lot of this latent heat .. only half the steam ..
Well, if you convert it into watts, 250 kg of ice can theoretically give as much "heat" as a 25KWh battery of a small electric car .. Except that during its download, its weight drops, and the battery does not ..
Here is an explanation of what it is like




Andrew

[Gary C]

1kg of ice 336000 Joules of 'heat' to turn to water.

25kg then is 8.4MJ

8.4MJ is 2.4KWhr so 24KWhr

The peltier effect was used to power lighthouses, but they used spent nuclear fuel which put out a lot more heat than a bit of ice ?

The amount of hot and cold junctions needed would be huge.

4.095mV/100C on a CrAl as I recall so only about 0.8mV for a 20C diff. How would you package all those hot & cold junctions to make any sort of useable voltage ?

Edited by Gary C on Sunday 24th July 10:56

Edited by Gary C on Sunday 24th July 10:59

[Feliks]

Gary C said:

1kg of ice 336000 Joules of 'heat' to turn to water.

25kg then is 8.4MJ

8.4MJ is 2.4KWhr so 24KWhr

The peltier effect was used to power lighthouses, but they used spent nuclear fuel which put out a lot more heat than a bit of ice ?

The amount of hot and cold junctions needed would be huge.

4.095mV/100C on a CrAl as I recall so only about 0.8mV for a 20C diff. How would you package all those hot & cold junctions to make any sort of useable voltage ?

Edited by Gary C on Sunday 24th July 10:56

Edited by Gary C on Sunday 24th July 10:59

Here you have this huge amount and your millivolts ..

https://new4stroke.com/swieci.mp4

How much of this 90 million euro is going to you? Probably not much ..

https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/599...

Andrew

[Gary C]

Feliks said:

Gary C said:

1kg of ice 336000 Joules of 'heat' to turn to water.

25kg then is 8.4MJ

8.4MJ is 2.4KWhr so 24KWhr

The peltier effect was used to power lighthouses, but they used spent nuclear fuel which put out a lot more heat than a bit of ice ?

The amount of hot and cold junctions needed would be huge.

4.095mV/100C on a CrAl as I recall so only about 0.8mV for a 20C diff. How would you package all those hot & cold junctions to make any sort of useable voltage ?

Edited by Gary C on Sunday 24th July 10:56

Edited by Gary C on Sunday 24th July 10:59

Here you have this huge amount and your millivolts ..

https://new4stroke.com/swieci.mp4

How much of this 90 million euro is going to you? Probably not much ..

https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/599...

Andrew

Ah.

Sensible question asked.

fking shower of ste back.

You mate are a total fantasist, go fk youself.

tt.

[gazza285]

Gary C said:

Sensible question asked.

This is not a thread for sensible questions, this is the purpetual motions thread

[Feliks]

Published by Yamaha, this month of the monthly "Powertrain Technology Internacional", a thermoelectric module for generating electricity from the heat of exhaust gases .. maybe knowledge, but not too much .. Very expensive and ineffective product ..
Page 60-61, 1-2.

https://www.ukimediaevents.com/publication/f503b03...





Andrew

[Feliks]

So we have to go back to 1712 and learn the science of warm and cold again ... :smoking:

Here is my example animation, how such a cold ice engine can work .. And we have 300 years to develop my concept .. I have already traveled a few years ..




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q66DxZB6plE


Andrew

[GreenV8S]

Feliks said:

So we have to go back to 1712 and learn the science of warm and cold again

Maybe you do.

Stirling engines are well known. That drawing shows an extremely crude one. Even very well designed ones have a hopelessly low power density and have no practical application.

[Pica-Pica]

Feliks said:

And this ice has a lot of this latent heat .. only half the steam ..
Well, if you convert it into watts, 250 kg of ice can theoretically give as much "heat" as a 25KWh battery of a small electric car .. Except that during its download, its weight drops, and the battery does not ..
Here is an explanation of what it is like




Andrew

… and when people say they got scalded by ‘steam’ they really mean water vapour, as can be seen, the latent heat of steam at (just across the border from) 100 deg C, compared to water at 100 deg C is vastly different and very damaging to e.g. skin.

[Feliks]

GreenV8S said:

Maybe you do.

Stirling engines are well known. That drawing shows an extremely crude one. Even very well designed ones have a hopelessly low power density and have no practical application.

But maybe so ...
We are already complicating the drawing. You understand this prowess the old way, and here the new has come.
You close all this business in a box of gas with a pressure of 100 atmospheres, and you take electricity from it, for 100 times better efficiency than you think .. This is also for low-temperature geothermal (50-80 degrees Celsius) and cold water, it is suitable ..
And by the way, it's very similar to my Haf Rotate engine, You can also give up round pistons .. and they can have large dimensions easily .. And then the power density will be rightly high, because everything works on Teflon seals. we deliver ice, ambient heat and we get electricity from this magic box .. of course, no emission of any by-products ..




https://youtu.be/46TI6R4vXCQ

Andrew

[TGCOTF-dewey]

Feliks said:

GreenV8S said:

Maybe you do.

Stirling engines are well known. That drawing shows an extremely crude one. Even very well designed ones have a hopelessly low power density and have no practical application.

But maybe so ...
We are already complicating the drawing. You understand this prowess the old way, and here the new has come.
You close all this business in a box of gas with a pressure of 100 atmospheres, and you take electricity from it, for 100 times better efficiency than you think .. This is also for low-temperature geothermal (50-80 degrees Celsius) and cold water, it is suitable ..
And by the way, it's very similar to my Haf Rotate engine, You can also give up round pistons .. and they can have large dimensions easily .. And then the power density will be rightly high, because everything works on Teflon seals. we deliver ice, ambient heat and we get electricity from this magic box .. of course, no emission of any by-products ..




https://youtu.be/46TI6R4vXCQ

Andrew

I think you're missing the wider context... Geothermal @ 80c is HIGHLY likely to have co-located geothermal at higher temps... Just drill deeper... so you can use a traditional turbine which will be more efficient than a nodding donkey.

You're also at ~ 100 bar pressure so it'll have to be a meaty pressure vessel - and a big one.

Then how do you get the ice into your machine? This is not energy free.

What's the use case for this?

I'm reminded of Rickover's letter to Congress where he was being challenged over SSN programme costs...

He wrote...

An academic reactor or reactor plant almost always has the following basic characteristics: (1) It is simple. (2) It is small. (3) It is cheap (4) It is light. (5) It can be built very quickly. (6) It is very flexible in purpose (’omnibus reactor’). (7) Very little development is required. It will use mostly off-the-shelf components. (8) The reactor is in the study phase. It is not being built now.

On the other hand, a practical reactor plant can be distinguished by the following characteristics: (1) It is being built now. (2) It is behind schedule. (3) It is requiring an immense amount of development on apparently trivial items. Corrosion, in particular, is a problem. (4) It is very expensive. (5) It takes a long time to build because of the engineering development problems. (6) It is large. (7) It is heavy. (8) It is complicated.

The tools of the academic-reactor designer are a piece of paper and a pencil with an eraser. If a mistake is made, it can always be erased and changed. If the practical-reactor designer errs, he wears the mistake around his neck; it cannot be erased. Everyone can see it.

The academic-reactor designer is a dilettante. He has not had to assume any real responsibility in connection with his projects. He is free to luxuriate in elegant ideas, the practical shortcomings of which can be relegated to the category of ‘mere technical details.’ The practical-reactor designer must live with these same technical details. Although recalcitrant and awkard, they must be solved and cannot be put off until tomorrow. Their solutions require manpower, time and money.

Unfortunately for those who must make far-reaching decisions without the benefit of an intimate knowledge of reactor technology and unfortunately for the interested public, it is much easier to get the academic side of an issue than the practical side. For a large part those involved with the academic reactors have more inclination and time to present their ideas in reports and orally to those who will listen. Since they are innocently unaware of the real but hidden difficulties of their plans, they speak with great facility and confidence. Those involved with practical reactors, humbled by their experience, speak less and worry more.

[DVandrews]

TGCOTF-dewey said:

I think you're missing the wider context... Geothermal @ 80c is HIGHLY likely to have co-located geothermal at higher temps... Just drill deeper... so you can use a traditional turbine which will be more efficient than a nodding donkey.

You're also at ~ 100 bar pressure so it'll have to be a meaty pressure vessel - and a big one.

Then how do you get the ice into your machine? This is not energy free.

What's the use case for this?

I'm reminded of Rickover's letter to Congress where he was being challenged over SSN programme costs...

He wrote...

An academic reactor or reactor plant almost always has the following basic characteristics: (1) It is simple. (2) It is small. (3) It is cheap (4) It is light. (5) It can be built very quickly. (6) It is very flexible in purpose (’omnibus reactor’). (7) Very little development is required. It will use mostly off-the-shelf components. (8) The reactor is in the study phase. It is not being built now.

On the other hand, a practical reactor plant can be distinguished by the following characteristics: (1) It is being built now. (2) It is behind schedule. (3) It is requiring an immense amount of development on apparently trivial items. Corrosion, in particular, is a problem. (4) It is very expensive. (5) It takes a long time to build because of the engineering development problems. (6) It is large. (7) It is heavy. (8) It is complicated.

The tools of the academic-reactor designer are a piece of paper and a pencil with an eraser. If a mistake is made, it can always be erased and changed. If the practical-reactor designer errs, he wears the mistake around his neck; it cannot be erased. Everyone can see it.

The academic-reactor designer is a dilettante. He has not had to assume any real responsibility in connection with his projects. He is free to luxuriate in elegant ideas, the practical shortcomings of which can be relegated to the category of ‘mere technical details.’ The practical-reactor designer must live with these same technical details. Although recalcitrant and awkard, they must be solved and cannot be put off until tomorrow. Their solutions require manpower, time and money.

Unfortunately for those who must make far-reaching decisions without the benefit of an intimate knowledge of reactor technology and unfortunately for the interested public, it is much easier to get the academic side of an issue than the practical side. For a large part those involved with the academic reactors have more inclination and time to present their ideas in reports and orally to those who will listen. Since they are innocently unaware of the real but hidden difficulties of their plans, they speak with great facility and confidence. Those involved with practical reactors, humbled by their experience, speak less and worry more.

Succinctly put, those who think they can run a railroad better have never run a railroad..

Dave

[Feliks]

So outside the box, only the water to be cooled is transmitted to the cooler and back and the resulting electric current. The heat can be supplied outside the box at normal atmospheric pressure. The efficiency of the device increases 10 times (or 100).
The steam does not go anywhere, because it is in a closed circuit, and the water is similar, it does not need to be topped up, but only cooled ..
Such "boxes" can be installed downstairs in mines to produce electricity .. with high efficiency .. But basically any source of heat can be used ..
The second law of thermodynamics, she forgot to say that the efficiency of a heat engine depends not only on the temperature difference, but also largely on the pressure at which the system works.
The Feliks-Newcomen formula.




https://youtu.be/zd5uDlfDwgc?t=369

Andrew

[Gary C]

Yay

You've invented a st steam engine

[gazza285]

Gary C said:

Yay

You've invented a st steam engine

It’s brilliant.

[Feliks]

gazza285 said:

Gary C said:

Yay

You've invented a st steam engine

It’s brilliant.

Yes, I must have followed the advice of English Universities ..

This is also how they felt at English Universities that the steam atmospheric engine could be the future ... But they devoted too much attention to efficiency, which, as I have shown, can be increased even 100 times, and besides, as the heat source is unlimited, this efficiency is basically indifferent. . It's probably 2013, judging by the quoted literature
Now they have to take into account the pressure in this "atmospheric engine", because I thickened the "atmosphere", well even 100 times, in principle, inexpensive inert gas (e.g. CO2)
But they also did not do well with this efficiency calculation.

https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/348565/1/Muller%2520RE...

Andrew

[Feliks]

gazza285 said:

Gary C said:

Yay

You've invented a st steam engine

It’s brilliant.

I am not sure if you mean my steam engine which I invented and named after Stephenson's fame - Stephenson second ..



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJ-M8M3Nm_M


Andrew