TheEEStory.com

News, Reviews and Discussion of EEStor Inc.
Jet In A Box « Open Forum « News, Reviews & Misc
 
Tue, 21 Feb 2012, 8:46pm #1
Generic
EEcclesiastical
Schrodinger
Registered: Mar, 2009
Last visit: Tue, 20 Mar 2012
Posts: 1247

http://newenergyandfuel.com/http:/newenergyandf...


┌─┐
┴─┴
ಠ_ರೃ

Why monocles? Why not.

Offline


Wed, 22 Feb 2012, 2:55am #2
Basic
EEndearing
Registered: Dec, 2008
Last visit: Wed, 26 Sep 2012
Posts: 958

Any guess on how much continuous power might it generate ?
As for efficiency: 70 deg exhaust gas temp, that's really low for such a small unit; any guess on possible efficency ?

Offline
Wed, 22 Feb 2012, 4:03am #3
Tec
EExhilarating
New_tec
Registered: Mar, 2009
Last visit: Sun, 04 Mar 2012
Posts: 8307

People have been making gas turbines this size for years and using them to power model aircraft. I believe the basis of these designs is usually a car turbocharger. They are generally started on propane then switch over to kerosene.

I don't think the outlet temperature is necessarily a good indication of its efficiency. You can lower it significantly with bypass air as is done in somewhat larger 'Trent' range of Rolls Royce turbofan engines used on many wide-bodied jets these days. From the point of view of safety, it is not a bad idea to have a low output temperature in a unit like this.

It is the turbine outlet temperature that you need to know to establish efficiency of the engine proper.

Offline
Wed, 22 Feb 2012, 5:30am #4
DGDanforth
EESUrient
Palosparkfallavatar
Registered: Oct, 2008
Last visit: Sat, 02 Feb 2013
Posts: 2484

I love the idea of it!
Yes, yes!
Firebird III here we come (expect it will be electric).


EEStor Hopeful.

"Make it as simple as possible, but not simpler" A. Einstein
"Alas, simplicity is rarely simple" curiositEE

Offline
Wed, 22 Feb 2012, 7:43am #5
EEasyflyr
EESUrient
Registered: Apr, 2011
Last visit: Tue, 05 Mar 2013
Posts: 6

This in combination with a suitable electric storage could allow light aircraft general aviation to become affordable, again.
As a charging system supplementing a smaller required electrical energy storage it would give that top-up, "extra time in your tanks".

Like Tec says it is depends on the units efficiency, as well as how long it will operate before overhaul or failure under a variety of operating/starting conditions.

It would be nice to have a compressor bleed-air port for heat/ pressurization, but probably more effective to have a separate electrical compressor/ heat source or an exhaust heat exchanger instead, given the units small size.


EEasyflyr

Offline
Wed, 22 Feb 2012, 8:18am #6
Tec
EExhilarating
New_tec
Registered: Mar, 2009
Last visit: Sun, 04 Mar 2012
Posts: 8307

I'm not sure I understand what point you are making here.

Offline
Wed, 22 Feb 2012, 9:57am #7
EEasyflyr
EExhilarating
Registered: Apr, 2011
Last visit: Tue, 05 Mar 2013
Posts: 6

simply this,

replace the ICE in small aircraft with electric, and flying for many becomes much more affordable,

for many flying is not just time in the air drilling holes,.

A micro turbine capable of recharging an electric aircraft opens up a whole lot of fun and utility, and saves a hell of a lot of cost related use/maintenance/overhaul of that gas engine.


EEasyflyr

Offline
Wed, 22 Feb 2012, 10:36am #8
Tec
EExhilarating
New_tec
Registered: Mar, 2009
Last visit: Sun, 04 Mar 2012
Posts: 8307

...replace the ICE in small aircraft with electric...

I don't think this is very practicable. I don't think you can carry enough energy to stay aloft for long, and its not as if you can simply pull over when you run out of juice is is.

Wouldn't it be easier to recharge the batteries from the mains on the ground anyway? I doubt whether this thing has much of a power output, and do you really want a portable gas turbine in the cabin with you whilst flying? I don't think I'd be awfully keen on it. It will surely emit copious quantities of carbon dioxide and possibly carbon monoxide too, just for fun.

Offline
Wed, 22 Feb 2012, 10:49am #9
Tec
EExhilarating
New_tec
Registered: Mar, 2009
Last visit: Sun, 04 Mar 2012
Posts: 8307

I understand too that the adapted turbochargers used as jet engines are not terribly reliable and blow up dramatically after a few dozen hours. This is hearsay. I've only seen one or two flying and they seem OK.

There is also a lunatic who straps a couple of these to his back attached to a short wing, then leaps out of planes and flies significant distances using them. I think he flew over the english channel like this some time back.

It looks ridiculous and must be a freezing cold as well as deafening experience. I don't think Airbus is worried about the potential loss of customers anyway.

Offline
Wed, 22 Feb 2012, 10:54am #10
Bretspot
Administrator
Vaultdwellerbr_sm
Registered: Aug, 2008
Last visit: Fri, 22 Feb 2013
Posts: 1598

WATTS?!!! HOW MANY WATTS!?


Read Bretspot's EEStor timeline
EEStor on Twitter
Never before have so many people understood so little about so much. James Burke

Offline
Wed, 22 Feb 2012, 12:10pm #11
EEasyflyr
EExhilarating
Registered: Apr, 2011
Last visit: Tue, 05 Mar 2013
Posts: 6

Tec,
Patience young Jedi,

fortunately most pilots are aware of the fuel and reserve requirements for safe flying, time in your tanks as we say. You perhaps are not.

"I don't think this is very practicable."
yet.
you're right of course, but that is the essence of this whole blog of B'S. Energy Storage. why most are here.

"recharge the batteries from the mains on the ground anyway?"
again what a great idea, glad you thought of it. perhaps similar to refueling on the ground. electricity much cheaper ,too.

" do you really want a portable gas turbine in the cabin with you whilst flying? "
NO except on Buffalo Joe's lockheed electra(Ice Pilots history channel?)
might raise a safety issue or two, dangerous goods etc. Do you really see this happening? I don't, anymore than putting in the cabin the APU in that dated BAE 146 I used to fly. Damned APU was always running out of oil, due small resevoir. It's not broken, it's British!
sorry TP.

"I don't think Airbus is worried about the potential loss of customers anyway."
What does this have to do with small aircraft and electric motors, used for recreation and general aviation purposes.

have a nice nap tec.
make sure you wake up on the right side of the bed, next time.


EEasyflyr

Offline
Wed, 22 Feb 2012, 12:20pm #12
Tec
EExhilarating
New_tec
Registered: Mar, 2009
Last visit: Sun, 04 Mar 2012
Posts: 8307

What does this have to do with small aircraft and electric motors, used for recreation and general aviation purposes.

None. It has to do with the original thread. Small jet engines.

If you can strap them onto your back and fly around, it might well affect small aviation and general aviation I'd have thought.

Offline
Wed, 22 Feb 2012, 12:38pm #13
EEasyflyr
EExhilarating
Registered: Apr, 2011
Last visit: Tue, 05 Mar 2013
Posts: 6

more to the point,
...small jet engines generating electricity...


EEasyflyr

Offline
Wed, 22 Feb 2012, 4:34pm #14
Lensman
EExhilarating
Illuminati_avatar
Registered: May, 2009
Last visit: Fri, 05 Apr 2013
Posts: 9475

Hey, Generic, thanks for the article! That is an interesting development.

But I'd feel more confident about what the article claimed if it didn't have such confused statements as this one:

Turbines are external combustion and can offer more thermal efficiency than internal combustion such as piston and cylinder engines.

Turbines can achieve greater efficiency than piston-powered engines do, but-- at least according to everything I've read-- internal combustion engines are more efficient overall than external combustion engines.

If external combustion engines were more efficient, we'd still be using steam engines in our automobiles.

Tec wrote:

I don't think the outlet temperature is necessarily a good indication of its efficiency. You can lower it significantly with bypass air...

Good point, Tec. Another indication that the writer of that article didn't know enough about the subject to write an authoritative report on this tech.


We are the 99%. A better world is possible.

Offline
Wed, 22 Feb 2012, 4:58pm #15
Tec
EExhilarating
New_tec
Registered: Mar, 2009
Last visit: Sun, 04 Mar 2012
Posts: 8307

Heres a video of one running. It seems to be gobbling fuel at the rate of knots.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhdZLGTP-2w

If you're interested in jet engines and how Rolls Royce produce them you may find this worth watching. Theirs are somewhat larger.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00t0yx9

I don't know if people outside the UK can see this. Its an unashamed plug for RR. I understand there are other - lesser - companies in the world that make something along the same lines. GEE or G I think they call themselves!

Offline
Wed, 22 Feb 2012, 5:37pm #16
WalksOnDirt
EESUrient
Ctenucha
Registered: Oct, 2008
Last visit: Wed, 21 Mar 2012
Posts: 1749

Lensman wrote:

Turbines can achieve greater efficiency than piston-powered engines do, but-- at least according to everything I've read-- internal combustion engines are more efficient overall than external combustion engines.

Odd, everything I've read agrees that external combustion engines are more efficient. They are expensive and lacking in torque, though.


Deasil is the right way to go.

Offline
Wed, 22 Feb 2012, 5:49pm #17
Tec
EExhilarating
New_tec
Registered: Mar, 2009
Last visit: Sun, 04 Mar 2012
Posts: 8307

Well, perhaps a micro Stirling engine might be a better bet.

I would not expect high efficiency from a miniature gas turbine.

Offline
Thu, 23 Feb 2012, 3:41am #18
Tec
EExhilarating
New_tec
Registered: Mar, 2009
Last visit: Sun, 04 Mar 2012
Posts: 8307

What about this?

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2006/microengines...

Its pretty old now. I wonder what happened to it? Another lab. promise that didn't work out I suppose.

Offline
Thu, 23 Feb 2012, 5:37am #19
Lensman
EExhilarating
Illuminati_avatar
Registered: May, 2009
Last visit: Fri, 05 Apr 2013
Posts: 9475

WalksOnDirt wrote:

Lensman wrote:

Turbines can achieve greater efficiency than piston-powered engines do, but-- at least according to everything I've read-- internal combustion engines are more efficient overall than external combustion engines.

Odd, everything I've read agrees that external combustion engines are more efficient. They are expensive and lacking in torque, though.

Not saying you're wrong, but I'd be curious to know what your source(s) of information are.

The first thing I found on the subject by Googling was this:

An internal combustion engine has higher efficiency than external combustion engine:

The efficiency of steam engine is only about 20% whereas an internal combustion engine can have efficiency up to 40%.

(source)

I presume that refers only to engines of approximately the size you find in cars and small or medium-sized trucks, because I know that some large marine (ship) diesel engines are up to about 51% efficient, and steam engines used in utility grid power plants are ~33% efficient.


We are the 99%. A better world is possible.

Offline
Thu, 23 Feb 2012, 5:41am #20
Lensman
EExhilarating
Illuminati_avatar
Registered: May, 2009
Last visit: Fri, 05 Apr 2013
Posts: 9475

Tec wrote:

Well, perhaps a micro Stirling engine might be a better bet.

I would not expect high efficiency from a miniature gas turbine.

Stirling engines are generally used in a closed cycle system (the exhaust [edit] working fluid [/edit] is recycled, not vented) and produce very limited power. It's easy to produce high efficiency in a closed cycle system, but generally speaking the power output is very limited. (Obviously not true for nuclear power plants.)

At any rate, I don't think a closed cycle system is suitable for the applications in question.

Last edited Fri, 24 Feb 2012, 2:45am by Lensman


We are the 99%. A better world is possible.

Offline
Thu, 23 Feb 2012, 6:22am #21
WalksOnDirt
EESUrient
Ctenucha
Registered: Oct, 2008
Last visit: Wed, 21 Mar 2012
Posts: 1749

Lensman wrote:

WalksOnDirt wrote:

Odd, everything I've read agrees that external combustion engines are more efficient. They are expensive and lacking in torque, though.

Not saying you're wrong, but I'd be curious to know what your source(s) of information are.

The first thing I found on the subject by Googling was this:

An internal combustion engine has higher efficiency than external combustion engine:

My sources were from the 1970s. Steam is not a good fluid for high efficiency. This link suggests that Stirling and Diesel engines are about the same. Time marches on, I suppose.

Last edited Thu, 23 Feb 2012, 7:56am by WalksOnDirt


Deasil is the right way to go.

Offline
Thu, 23 Feb 2012, 6:32am #22
Lensman
EExhilarating
Illuminati_avatar
Registered: May, 2009
Last visit: Fri, 05 Apr 2013
Posts: 9475

WalksOnDirt wrote:

This link suggests that Stirling and Diesel engines are about the same. Time marches on, I suppose.

Thanks, WoD. Hmmm, I thought that a closed-cycle system like the Stirling could achieve greater efficiency than a diesel engine, but I guess that isn't true.

Last edited Fri, 24 Feb 2012, 2:39am by Lensman


We are the 99%. A better world is possible.

Offline
Thu, 23 Feb 2012, 6:51am #23
Tec
EExhilarating
New_tec
Registered: Mar, 2009
Last visit: Sun, 04 Mar 2012
Posts: 8307

The working fluid is not vented - ever - in a stirling engine so it doesn't actually have an exhaust in the sense of a gast turbine. It just needs a heat source which might need a chimney of some sort.(If you used a radioactive source like Sr90 it wouldn't need an exhaust at all!)

They are extremely efficient and high power ones are perfectly feasible. Here's a 5HP one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpqhX_66n18

Here's a domestic CHP system using one. It looks relatively compact to me. http://www.whispergen.com/main/technology/

I've seen a design for one where there was no rotary generator. Instead the piston contained a powerful magnet, and the cylinder incorporated coils so the power was generated directly with no rotary motion. It was designed to phase lock to mains frequency. Unfortunately I can't find the reference. Perhaps it didn't work out for some reason. That too was intended for domestic CHP and if I remember rightly would probably fit into a medium sized suitcase.

I think I'd prefer this approach to a turbine screaming away at 100,000 rpm and burning fuel like there was no tomorrow.

Offline
Thu, 23 Feb 2012, 7:57am #24
WalksOnDirt
EESUrient
Ctenucha
Registered: Oct, 2008
Last visit: Wed, 21 Mar 2012
Posts: 1749

Lensman wrote:

BTW-- You kinda mixed up who you were quoting in your last post-- you or me.

Sorry, fixed now.


Deasil is the right way to go.

Offline
Thu, 23 Feb 2012, 8:05am #25
WalksOnDirt
EESUrient
Ctenucha
Registered: Oct, 2008
Last visit: Wed, 21 Mar 2012
Posts: 1749

Tec wrote:

The working fluid is not vented - ever - in a stirling engine so it doesn't actually have an exhaust in the sense of a gast turbine. It just needs a heat source which might need a chimney of some sort.(If you used a radioactive source like Sr90 it wouldn't need an exhaust at all!)

You also need a cold sink, of course.


Deasil is the right way to go.

Offline
Thu, 23 Feb 2012, 8:08am #26
Tec
EExhilarating
New_tec
Registered: Mar, 2009
Last visit: Sun, 04 Mar 2012
Posts: 8307

Yes of course. With a small one, I'd hope a fan and ambient air might do the job.

Offline
Thu, 23 Feb 2012, 4:36pm #27
unipres
EEuphoric
Mikes2
Registered: Jul, 2009
Last visit: Tue, 03 Apr 2012
Posts: 833

EEasyflyr wrote:

This in combination with a suitable electric storage could allow light aircraft general aviation to become affordable, again.
As a charging system supplementing a smaller required electrical energy storage it would give that top-up, "extra time in your tanks".

Like Tec says it is depends on the units efficiency, as well as how long it will operate before overhaul or failure under a variety of operating/starting conditions.

It would be nice to have a compressor bleed-air port for heat/ pressurization, but probably more effective to have a separate electrical compressor/ heat source or an exhaust heat exchanger instead, given the units small size.

Airplanes are all about power-to-weight ratio. It would be much better to just have a small turbine as the power source or directly swing a prop. All this extra weight would assure it didn't get off the ground.


I do not debate to prove you are wrong, but rather to test that my convictions live up to your scrutiny. --me

Offline
Thu, 23 Feb 2012, 8:22pm #28
Tec
EExhilarating
New_tec
Registered: Mar, 2009
Last visit: Sun, 04 Mar 2012
Posts: 8307

I'm told gas turbine engines HAVE been successfully used for powering aircraft. Not housed in a suitcase however, and without the generator battery and motor.

Offline
Thu, 23 Feb 2012, 9:20pm #29
Y_Po
EExhilarating
Zawy_y_go
Registered: May, 2009
Last visit: Thu, 13 Feb 2014
Posts: 5648

Gas turbines are internal combustion engines.
Small jets are less efficient than bigger one.


Q: What would happen if you give 12V battery and two 6V light bulbs to Weir/Nelson?

A: They will wait 8 years for 12V➜6V DC-DC converter.

http://theeestory.com/topics/3687
http://theeestory.com/topics/2105
http://theeestory.com/topics/4835

Offline
Thu, 23 Feb 2012, 9:23pm #30
Y_Po
EExhilarating
Zawy_y_go
Registered: May, 2009
Last visit: Thu, 13 Feb 2014
Posts: 5648

Tec wrote:

I'm told gas turbine engines HAVE been successfully used for powering aircraft. Not housed in a suitcase however, and without the generator battery and motor.

Most helicopters are powered by gas turbines.
And on small propeller planes turbines are usual too. They are more expensive than piston engines.

Last edited Thu, 23 Feb 2012, 9:37pm by Y_Po


Q: What would happen if you give 12V battery and two 6V light bulbs to Weir/Nelson?

A: They will wait 8 years for 12V➜6V DC-DC converter.

http://theeestory.com/topics/3687
http://theeestory.com/topics/2105
http://theeestory.com/topics/4835

Offline