This is gotto besaid's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following gotto besaid's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
gotto besaid
Recent Activity
What a good idea to help the worlds ballance of payment problems with not only money issues but also the knowledge transfer with will lead to more balance of payments issues. Well done guys
Great idea and I know where to get a feed when hungry and stuck in the desert. Also is this not a full circle for ford as if I remember correctly Henry ford made a 100% natural comperset fiber body panels that were stronger and more resulant than steel which he deminstrated by hitting with a sledge hammer. But If I remember correctly was it not the US govenment that forced him with financial carrots to drop the idea and use energy hungry steel to assit a flagging steel indrustry. imagin the possabilities if old henry has continued with the 100% natural, stainable & recycleable marerials. Keep on devoloping Mr Ford- did up henry and ask for ideas Dave Mc
If you are as old as me you will remember the french nucular testing in the pacific and their lack of safety. now consider a french automaker in collaberation with who else but the French Energies and Atomic Energy Commission (responsible for the pacific testing) in devoloping a new electrical energy source. I dont need to think to hard to see the relationship and the facy that they have posssabily been watching to much of the car in back to the future. Guys we dont want necular powered cars thank you ro are you thying to find a use for all your necular waist material (o my god a win win solution) I dont trust you guys. dave mc
Here we go again a project to raise money without any end of the line usability. Yes turbines have a very efficent combustion process and have a large amont of power to weight ration but they use a LOT OF Fuel compaired to a less inefficent combustion process intenal combuction engine. Simple just look at the waist heat output. Why dont our so called smart young engineers acturally studdy the past so they dont make the same mistakes twice. Great for planes Power to weight ratio, great for quick responce high power generators, rubbish for cars. High fire risk, high noise = more weight in containment, high usage of fuels = large storage requirements, can use multi fuels = complex designs dave mc
So simple now we see it - great work. The only thisng I would suggest is to try and have more point increments touching to enabel the design to be smalle for the same power and increase it,s life. One again great idea hope it goes well from this stage - the hard stage of getting to market. Dave mc
Ford produce an turbine experimental car in the 60 to 70s and two problems - melted the cars behind and with the high temps was a fire risk. Unless the exhaust is used in waist heat recovery such as steam generation it is totally a waste of time as turbines use lots of air flow and with the correct ratio of fuel to air, means lots of fuel. It must be about the fuel in = work done. I have been involved with turbine generators for over 20 years and never seen one that gives better total fuel economy than a diesel gen set.(this includes the latest micro turbines) They have other benefits like, cleaner burning and higher thermal efficiency, low weight, reliability and quicker operational response & starting. But some one above some discussed the work efficiency compared to the thermal efficiency. At the end of the day It's performing the work NOTHING ELSE. But I'm certain some scientist who has not read history is convinced some banker to part with the money for research, On had they read history and found easy money. why are old marine engineers so skeptical.
seals, seals , seals this is the biggest killer of these types of engines, they just dont last. I see they are discussing using water sealing which sounds positive and if they mean high presure injection on the seal face it may just work . I hope so. The other problem is the very low torque produced with this type of engine and torque is what turns the wheels, yes speed can be covered to torgue though gearing but this creats a large lot of energy loss. Also the 30% effenancy needs to be at the work produced end not just the combustion process. A turbine has 80 to 90% effeciancy but uses huge amount of fuel to do the same thing as a diesel engine due to the high volume of air fuel mixture and the high loss of exhaust heat. The diesel on the other hand is only around 20% efficent at the drive end and about 60% effectent in the combustion process. On the other hand most petrol engines have a final usable effenancy of less than 13% and the best are very slow speed high torque marine diesels, at about 35% so hopefully this engine has a 30% efficancy measured at the engine output doing work and is reliable and can be used in cars or trucks. It would certainly then produce huge egery savings.
Lets just hope the equipment is long shoreman proof unless thay have changed since I docked frequently at Long Beach. 99% of them were drugged up to the eyeballs and between the crashes and the waised time with the enginees just running any improvement could be just waisted. The amount of energy used in manafacturing replacement spare parts alone was huge, every time we left Long beach, Bitter after 20 years you bet.
Good Idea - most ships cant use all the waist heat in the waist heat boiler and combining the steam generated with the exhaust overflow is a good idea. Also 10% energy saving is a huge fuel saving on a ship and will certainly appear to be cost effective to allow refits
Everthing new is old again. When I startd as a Marine Engineer the old water cooled and lubricated stern tube bearing (malignamvity) were just being phased out. One of the main reasons is the lack of life and the use of natural wooden materials that was also polutant. the use of new materials is certainly a possability but the sault in sae water is very abrasive. the energy used to purify water is high and most ships do not loose hardly any stern tube oil. The life of a oil lubricated is normally the lift of the ship (less energy used in is remanafacture)and it is easy to utilise artificial or vegitabekl oils that do not contaminate the enviroment. Ps: To Arnold - Epoxy is inert ans does not desolve in sea water but uses very toxic chamicals in manafacture. The amount that would be used in this aplication would be less than .00000000% compaied to what is used on the ship elsewhere. Also Marine engineers have been planning engine life and repairs for 5 to 10 years ahead for over 40 years. Know your subject befor you open your mouth.
engineeing, energy effieancy, and critisium of non practical %#$@^$ wits Continue reading
Posted Mar 30, 2010 at gotto besaid's blog
gotto besaid is now following The Typepad Team
Mar 30, 2010