Brad Ideas - Stirling Engine based hybrid car - Comments

Thing abou LENR/coldFusion

Alain — Sun, 05 Feb 2012 14:26:10 -0800

@Sean
Just to say you that your dream to put nuclear energy
in a car is now possible with working Cold Fusion, as
implemented by Defkalion Green Tech, and Andrea Rosssi Ecat...

http://www.defkalion-energy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=926

... thanks for the comments on Stirling... instructives.
bytheway cold fusion is not pathologic science, it could even probably respect standard quantum mechanic (if Widom-Larsen theory is right)
keep tuned.

Wow, we can stop the wind?

Willy Like Wow — Wed, 14 Sep 2011 07:23:11 -0700

Take energy out of the wind? Wow. Actually, if we want to talk green here, there used to be far more "wind-dampers" than there are now - they were called "Trees". Unfortunately, the energy they took from the wind was wasted in the form of heat as the wood fibers expanded and contracted as the tree and it's branches and leaves were flexed by the very abundant wind. The cool thing about wind is that it is renewable (should be BLATENTLY obvious, but at this point I'm taking no chances), and as long as there are temperature differences in the atmosphere (ie., as long as the sun shines and is absorbed differently by different substances - you know, like continental crust and ocean water), we will have wind. And as we are currently experiencing the environmental impact of the REMOVAL of these pre-existing wind-dampers, I sincerely doubt there is a legitimate issue with putting a few BACK - lol!!

Stopping the wind

Richard Darling — Thu, 04 Aug 2011 06:53:08 -0700

You said "And as far as wind energy goes...what do you think happens to the environment when the wind is STOPPED at a certain point? "

You are wrong with this line of reasoning. Wind turbines will never stop the wind. The wind is constantly generated by a combination of the rotation of the earth and the heat produced by the sun's radiation. So, the windspeed just downwind of a turbine will be slightly slower than it would otherwise be, just like the wind downwind of a tree or building would be. We could never stop the wind, even if the whole planet was covered in wind turbines.

Then quit talking and pay

Anonymous — Fri, 27 May 2011 11:48:35 -0700

Then quit talking and pay for it.

Stirling power

AnonymousStock — Tue, 19 Apr 2011 10:21:09 -0700

I believe it would be cost effective and environmenally sound to apply solar stirling engines to residential electrical power. Along with powering your home, I believe you could also charge a battery for an automobile for short trips.

geothermal energy

Phillip Helbig — Tue, 05 Apr 2011 00:52:44 -0700

No, that's not the case. One can calculate how long it would take the Earth to cool from a molten state to its present temperature, and the timescale is much too short compared to that which geology and paleontology require. Before the discovery of radioactivity, this was a real problem. Check out Lord Kelvin's estimate of the age of the Earth.

really

Anonymous — Sat, 02 Apr 2011 03:32:32 -0700

i thought geothermal energy was a relic of when our planet was a molten hot ball as a result of asteroid bombardment. my understanding was that the friction caused when an asteroid hit the surface caused this heat, and the sheer mass of our planet had kept it from cooling.

objections

Anonymous — Sat, 02 Apr 2011 03:19:51 -0700

nuclear power is a very long-duration project. when one considers the resources and power required to keep nuclear power plants in good condition and to keep nuclear wastes in safe storage, one can easily see that there is little energy gained from investing in a nuclear power plant.

other alternative power sources, like wind power, wave power, etc will theoretically have big impacts on the climate if used in large numbers. when people use turbines or other machinery to take energy out of wind, for example, the wind is slowed down because the energy was taken from it to move the electrons. consider, then, what would happen if alot of energy was taken from the wind. it may slow down so much that current weather cycles may be no more. perhaps cloud formations wouldn't move where they were supposed to go, and one place flooded while the other experienced droughts. certainly not good.

the thing is, we simply need to conserve our resources and take as little as possible

Chemistry? you mean physics?

Anonymous — Tue, 08 Feb 2011 00:29:53 -0800

Are the first mistake you main was in the first sentence, do you actually know what nuclear energy is and how it works.

Number 1: nuclear energy is Physics not chemistry.

Number 2: nuclear energy is not a chemical reaction with reactants. It is a process that involves high energy particles such as beta particles, alpha particles or neutrons colliding and splitting the nucleus of an atom, resulting in a loss of mass which using the equation by Einstein E=mc^2 gives you the amount of energy produced. It is in no way a process that involves substance in instead involves fuel rods that are usually uranium which will undergo a controllable nuclear reaction to for smaller radioactive elements.

Number 3: Yes you are correct there is a cleaner and better for of nuclear energy, it is called fusion. Problem is that it is hast actually been successfully done yet for a long duration or produce a usable power output. and this is not from a lack of trying. it is a far more complicated process. Look up the refit and current use of the Z machine and you will know what I mean.

sometimes it is valid

Phillip Helbig — Fri, 28 Jan 2011 03:09:18 -0800

Sometimes the comparison is valid: if you're comparing cost. Especially since in many countries
diesel costs about 10--15% less per litre than petrol (the road tax is higher, but it is a net savings
if one drives as much as the typical diesel owner) and also biodiesel is available which is even cheaper.

Nuclear Power: Why Not Thorium?

Anonymous — Thu, 27 Jan 2011 14:07:17 -0800

Why do advocates of nuclear power as a "green" energy source almost never discuss the thorium fuel cycle? Many experts believe that the problem of waste management can be contained within a humanly manageable time span using variations of this technology. Thorium is more abundant than uranium. Thorium-based reactors cannot be used to breed plutonium. There is essentially no risk of a Chernobyl-style disaster.

It's true that thorium can't sustain a chain reaction without help--some "seed" quantity of conventional nuclear fuel is required for known practical designs, although Carlo Rubbia's "energy amplifier" concept, if made practical, would eliminate that need. But this feature, advocates say, makes thorium-based systems far safer and more controllable then their uranium-based counterparts.

Speaking as a practical, non-religious advocate of high technology and a scientific view of everyday life, I can say that if the reality of the thorium cycle lived up to the claims that are made for it, my own environmental objections to nuclear fission as a source of electricity (in and of itself and pending an analysis of the costs and benefits of other "green" alternatives) might well be removed entirely.

It makes you wonder what the true motives of the "uranium or die" nuclear advocates really are. And why does advanced capitalism, that professedly infallible guarantor, via the "invisible hand," of the greatest possible good for the greatest number, seem to be ignoring this technology, which would be extremely popular and marketable if its benefits could be realized?

Gearturbine - New Atypical Inflow Thermodynamic Technology

Carlos Barerra — Fri, 17 Dec 2010 16:06:34 -0800

Gearturbine - Atypical Thermodynamic Technology Submission

http://gearturbine.260mb.com

YouTube Video; Atypical New * GEARTURBINE / Retrodynamic = DextroRPM VS LevoInFlow + Ying Yang Thrust Way Type - Non Waste Looses

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cPo9Lf44TE

GEARTURBINE -Atypical Combustion Turbine Engine, -State of the Art, -New Thermodynamic Technology, -With Retrodynamic "Dextrogiro vs Levogiro" Effect, is when the inflow direction moves is against [VS] of the circular rotary dynamic, When the inflow have more velocity the rotor have more RPM / because push the single turbine with the planetary gear, (an a example is like to move the head to the side of the strike hit) / RPM Rotor Move VS Inflow Conduits Way /ACTION VS REACTION / Front to Front / Velocity vs Velocity, making in a simple way a very strong concept of power thrust, a unique technical quality. -Wide cylindrical shape dynamic mass (continue Inertia cinetic positive tendens motion / all the motor weight is goin with the power thrust direction), -Non Waste, parasitic losses form-function engine system for; cooling, lubrication & combustion; -Lubrication & Combustion inside a conduit radial position, out way direction, activated by centrifugal force Fueled Injected, -Cooling in & out; In by Thermomix flow & Out by air Thermo transference, activated by the dynamic rotary move, -Increase the first compression by going of reduction of one big circumference fan blades going to, -2two very long distance captive compression inflow propulsion conduits (like a digestive system) (long interaction) in perfect equilibrium well balanced start were end like a snake bite his own tale, -Inside active rotor with 4 pairs of retrodynamic turbos (complete regeneration power system), -Mechanical direct "Planetary Gear" power thrust like a Ying Yang (very strong torque) (friendly loose friction) 2two small gears in polar position inside a bigger shell gear, wide out the rotor circumference were have much more lever power thrust, lower RPM in a simple way solution, to make possible for a some innovative work application (cars/land). -3 Stages of inflow turbo compression before the combustion. -3 points united of power thrust; 1- Rocket Flames, 2-Planetary Gear & 3-Exhaust Propulsion, all in one system. -2two continuous circular moving inside combustion (rocket flames) like two dragons trying to bite the tail of the opposite other. -Hybrid flow system different kind of aerolasticity thermoplastic inflow propulsion types; single, action & reaction turbines applied in one same system, -Military benefits, No blade erosion by sand & very low heat target profile. -Power thrust by barr (tube); air sea land & generation application, -A pretender of very high % porcent efficient power plant engine. -Patent; Dic 1991 IMPI Mexico #197187

Stirling Engine Automobiles

Anonymous — Thu, 30 Sep 2010 19:01:06 -0700

Sean,

How much do you know about Stirling engine autos? You probably didn't know that every one of the former "Big Four" car companies, except Chrysler, developed a Stirling engine automobile; Ford partnered with Philips to make a Stirling auto, American Motors partnered with NASA, and General Motors was working with Stirling electric hybrids, originally as a space power source experiment. The only reason they were not mass produced is that the manufacturing costs, of the time, were too high, there were a few engineering flaws, including thermal efficiency ratings, and the lift of the Carter Era oil embargo. Ford and General Motors both have the data and the ability to manufacture an inexpensive Stirling engine auto with the new materials of today. Also, the part that Brad is talking about is the displacer cylinder. No combustion takes place in the engine itself only within the combustion chamber, which heats the displacer cylinders.

Brad,

I agree with Sean about Stirling engine autos not needing a significant amount of time to heat up. He just didn't give a good example. Ford had their Stirling where you could turn the key and drive away in less than a minute. By the way, you could not , in theory, put wood in an automobile Stirling engine and drive. There is no possible way, unless you removed the combustion chamber, set the wood directly on the displacer cylinders, and started a fire with a match. I don't think you would want to do that.

Quickly Generated Steam

Anonymous — Thu, 30 Sep 2010 18:27:27 -0700

Several steam car companies of the early twentieth century, White, Doble, and Delling, had a water tube type boiler. All that means is you have water that flows upward through a coiled tube with a burner above it. As that water reaches the top it becomes steam and then super heated steam. Those types of boilers could generate enough steam in thirty seconds, from dead cold, to get you going down the street.

Why not have a combustion

Anonymous — Wed, 18 Aug 2010 11:39:46 -0700

Why not have a combustion engine and use the acess (I know it's wrong) heat for the stirling engine.

Stirling Engine based hybrid car

brad — Wed, 02 Jun 2004 15:58:35 -0700

I'm not the only one to have thought of this, but as yet no real work has been done. How about a hybrid car powered with a Stirling Engine? (Not spelled Sterling, btw.)

The Stirling is more efficient than the internal combustion or diesel engine, and it's also a lot quieter. Sounds great, but it's not good for cars because it can't rev up quickly and it takes about 5 minutes to get the engine hot enough to run well. We want our cars to start the minute we put the key in.

A hybrid design (with enough batteries for 10-20 miles) solves this. You can get all the acceleration you need from the electric motors, and you can start driving right away, while heating up the Stirling "boiler". Then it kicks in to provide the power to run the car for the long haul. If you know the trip is short, no need to fire up the Stirling until the battery gets low.

The Stirling can burn anything. Gasoline, kerosene, diesel, vegetable oil, hydrogen, even wood! Yes, you could, in theory, be stuck by the side of the road out of gas, then go out with an axe to chop trees and refuel your car.

Well, almost. You want high-temperature burning for the best efficiency, and this would pollute and probably dirty your nice clean boiler. Right now the engines are expensive to machine but I suspect that could change.