Workshop In An Alternate Homepower Environment

Page 10 of 13  


There are and have been air powered cars...they are lighter for a hybrid version than a battery hybrid.Since all you do is add a burner in most cases. Brayton cycle in a turbine ....Or rankine or sterling in a piston .

-
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 05:10:55 -0500, "Arnold Walker"

Off hand, I can think of three ICE/battery hybrids currently selling in good numbers - Toyota Prius, and Honda Civic and Accord. Unless you can offer some similar examples of ICE/air hybrids, I'm going to stick with the notion that car manufacturers haven't found compressed air to be a competitive energy storage medium for automobiles.
Wayne
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

PC ,while GM,Mercedes ,and the of the auto world chose to look for an engine. That actually was more effecent at something other than emptying your pockets.
Stanley had third market manufacturers converting thier steamcars to air in the early 1900's. Many steamtrains are now ran on air due to boiler code worrys by insurance companies. If you ever get back to science,instead politics ....you will notice, much of what is new is an old idea rehashed. I ,personally, am happy building the equipment instead of relying on a another person's word on the information. If you really must get fried on your information ......the patent office has about 150years of air drive and electric drive vehicles to flame with you.I don't see the point.
-
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

CFR (Call for Reference) on the above. as I believe it to be Bullshit..... the only Steampowered Trains still in existance, and in commercial service are in third and fouth world countries, and mostly run on diesel fired boilers. Turning big air compressors with diesel engines is a very wastefull way to move Railroad Rolling Stock.
Me
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I think so too, especially because even without the water an old boiler pressurized with air is also no small danger.

There *might* be some stored steam engines still running, typically in chemistry or power plants where steam is available anyway and can be filled into the engine easily.
--
Dr. Juergen Hannappel http://lisa2.physik.uni-bonn.de/~hannappe
mailto: snipped-for-privacy@physik.uni-bonn.de Phone: +49 228 73 2447 FAX ... 7869
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2005-06-24 snipped-for-privacy@lisa2.physik.uni-bonn.de said: >Newsgroups: alt.energy.homepower,rec.crafts.metalworking,rec. >woodworking
>>> Many steamtrains are now ran on air due to boiler code worrys by >>>insurance companies. >> CFR (Call for Reference) on the above. as I believe it to be >> Bullshit.... >I think so too, especially because even without the water an old >boiler pressurized with air is also no small danger. >> the only Steampowered Trains still in existance, >> and in commercial service are in third and fouth world countries, >There *might* be some stored steam engines still running, typically >in chemistry or power plants where steam is available anyway and >can be filled into the engine easily. >-- >Dr. Juergen Hannappel http://lisa2.physik.uni-bonn . >de/~hannappe >Physikalisches Institut der Uni Bonn Nussallee 12, D-53115 Bonn, >Germany CERN: Phone: +412276 76461 Fax: ..77930 Bat. 892-R-A13 >CH-1211 Geneve 23 Smith Brothers in Galesville, MD (a marine construction and equipment rental firm I used to work for) has an old steam crane operated from a 1000CFM air compressor, used for plucking barge sections from the water. Makes a merry chug.
You are aware of coal-fired steam excursion trains? We have one in northern New Mexico (Cumbres & Toltec) and there are many in Colorado.
Tom Willmon near Mountainair, (mid) New Mexico, USA
Net-Tamer V 1.12.0 - Registered
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Your are correct on equal danger.....but that is not the way some insurance companies see it. When you first built up an engine it is air tested,so virtual all steam piston engine's start life on air drive. One problem with theme parks like Disney is that the employees were used to IC engines. And waste a lot of steam because they don't understand the point of a throttle and a cutout(variable timing link in other words) The reason ,about seven steam trains are missing from Disney World. Both good air and good steam operation gets max. expansion for the unit of work done. Steam is a little tricker because of overexpansion in the right conditions.Air usually is retarded 10 degrees behind the the setting used for a steamengine on a given load. Look around and we will find at least one historical steam train running in virtually every state.....Texas has three,Colorado has two,and so on. One irony about your steamtrain remark....is that in the Golden Era of steam the major number of the locomotives in operation were industrial not commerical service. In my hometown in East Texas during that time period....there were seven railroad lines running thru town. Missouri and Southern Pacific had two lines with Southern Pacific furnishing all contract rail and locomotive maintenance service.And the rest of the lines were sawmill trains hauling timber out of the woods. Many quarries,mines,and shipyards had trains for do-it-yourself short line work in other parts of the country.
Phone: +49 228 73 2447 FAX ... 7869

-
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

on most of thier trains. There are historic trains all over the US running at this time.
-
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Me wrote:

here are a few facts...
There are still a lot of steam locomotives in service around the country in excursion service. They all run in the traditional way - oil or coal or wood burned to make steam to move a piston. Note the repeated changes in the state of the energy. Each time you make such a change you lose a lot of energy - simple thermodynamics.
Reconditioned/restored old steam locos are often run on compressed air for safety testing. They don't actually go anywhere that way.
Let's look at an energy balance. Energy to heat water from 60 F to 212 F - 152 BTU/lb. Energy to convert water at 212 F to steam at 212 F and 0 psig - 970 BTU/lb. Energy to take steam at 0 psig to 300 psig - 235 BTU/lb. Adding these up, the total energy to take water at 60 F to steam at 300 psig is 1357 BTU/lb. The only portion of this that is usable is the energy in the steam. If the steam enters the cylinder at 300 psig and leaves at 0 psig the actual energy used to do work is 235 BTU/lb, or 17.3% of the energy added to the water in the tender.
Now add in all the losses involved in converting coal or oil to steam (less than 50% efficient) and you can see that a steam locomotive is very inefficient.
So what about compressed air? If you look at the volumes involved you will see that it is just not practical. 1 cu.ft. of air at 3000 psig is about 200 cu.ft. of air at 0 psig. 1 cu.ft of water is about 1630 cu.ft. of steam at 0 psig. A UP Big Boy locomotive used about 100 gallons (13.3 cu.ft) of water per mile on flat ground with a full 7000 ton cargo load. That means that to run on compressed air it would need a storage tank capable of holding 3000 psig pressures of over 800 gallons to run one mile! Just how close would the compressed air refueling stations need to be, and how much would it cost to compress the air?
Sure compressed air is great in the shop, but do you really care if it costs you 6 cents/hour instead of 2 cents/hour to run your pad sander? By the same token, why are there no table saws that run on compressed air? Probably because most of us have neither the money nor the space for a compressor large enough to do the job.
Note that this is a reply to the whole thread, not to the actual poster the reply is posted to. In face, he is right. Going from the rotary output of a deisel engine to compresed air to reciprocating motion of pistons is very inefficient, and that doesn't even take into account all of the other problems (non-energy related) of reciprocating piston locomotive drivers.
Peter
--


-- PeterZ --

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Some recompress themselves with exhaust air,then heat the air recovered in the boiler.
Many mine trains also run on air since sparks can be deadly in the right environment. They usually are either diesel air or stored air trains.
-
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You really don't know a lot about mechanical engineering, do you.....

state they don't use anymore????
Actually here in the USA most of the Mine Trains are electric with Induction motors, and Solidstate FreqDrives that have no brushes or Sparkpoints that aren't covered by Flame Supperssion Barriers.... Flame Suppresion Technology has been in our mines since the 1920's when they were mostly electrified. A few are diesel-electric, and a few more Propane-electric, but being a retired Powderman, I has some small experience in the Industry, and have NEVER seen an Air Powered Mine Donkey. Basic Menchanical Engineering Thermaldynamics should be enough to convince anyone, that Stored Air Trains would be a Collasally Inefficent way to power a mine donkey, and if it were even in the same Order of Magnitude, all that conversion loss, would be a deal killer, anyway.
Me CFR really means not your opinion, but someone elses actall Reseached Facts..............
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

1] Habit; they were taught with air tools 2] They don't care a whit about efficiency 3] Seen a 300ft/lb cordless impact wrench lately? 4] electricity+gasolined
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
yourname wrote:

Partly true, but the big ones in the auto shop environment are cost and durability. Air tools are much more durable than most battery powered tools, and their cost relative to their performance is low since the real power source for all those air tools is one big compressor and it is directly providing mechanical energy to the tool.
Pete C.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

much effecient at storaging .Why are repair shop using air tools instead battery powered tools.

,
-
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

much effecient at storaging .Why are repair shop using air tools instead battery powered tools.

,
-
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Air tools are generally more compact and lighter than their electric counterparts. They can also move more energy in the same amount of time.
P.S. If you're going to reply to just one line in a post, please trim the other 170 lines.
--
B.B. --I am not a goat! thegoat4 at airmail dot net
http://web2.airmail.net/thegoat4 /
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 11:47:58 -0500, "B.B."

Not to mention the fact that the tools themselves tend to cost a lot less.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

much effecient at storaging .Why are repair shop using air tools instead battery powered tools.

,
-
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That question isn't real relative to the discussion as you don't specify the type of battery your talking about. Some batteries are very efficent at recharging and some are not. Some batteries have very large capacities and some do not. Air tools have their place, but it takes a very large airtank to keep one running for a few hours, without adding more air. You can't run a soldering iorn off air, but you can off batteries. Lets see you lug around a portable airtank to run your Impact Tool, and have it still run after 30 minutes of use. Apple and oranges, dude......
Me
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

You only need to calculate the numbers for volume and consumption, as I'm in agreement that with good wind, it's feasible that a resourceful scrounger could put up sufficient rotor area.

Excellent point, and I've committed it to memory in case I decide to do a utility-scale installation. :-)

They're nearly ten years old now, and I won't be surprised if they make 15 or 20. But home power systems pretty well always need *some* batteries, so all we're talking about is whether the size could be reduced somewhat by an additional system. And keep in mind that a primary goal of home power (at least at my place), is to minimize the energy that makes a trip through the batteries.

Well, since my uh, somewhat unconventional neighbor ;-) thought of doing compressed air, I think that if it were viable for home power, it should have become popular by now. The subject of home power scale pumped hydro comes up here regularly, and those impossible numbers can be found in the archives.

I've never heard of that being an issue, and it certainly hasn't come up at my place, which has a high ratio of wind charging capacity to battery size, and some pretty gusty winds.

I think that once you run some numbers, you'll find that an air system with the capacity you're thinking of will need several big rotors. While I do have a small wind turbine scabbed onto my tower some distance from the top, I couldn't add even one Bowjon type thing the same way. Cheap rotors (multi-piece sheet metal) end up being pretty heavy. IIRC, the Bowjon has a gearbox as well as the pump.

If you're serious, I'd like to see some numbers. How much can the waste heat from 12kWhrs of inverter use raise the temperature of 80 gallons of water? And how practical is it to capture that by adding yet another element to a solar water-heating system?

Except for the unloader valve which isn't required, that's an approach I've recommended previously here, partly because the drop in wire size can save a few bucks on a deep hole. But you're still talking about a good-sized inverter, plus a transformer, plus a VFD. Considering the other benefits of dual inverters, our preference was to do that instead, even though at 1/2hp a VFD wasn't required here, so the savings on that didn't count.

Why do you say 24-7? An affordable startup concept I've recommended to a few is an inverter/charger, batteries, and a Honda EU series. Run the generator, say, every day for a couple of hours at max output during peak load times, and for several hours every so often for battery health. Add solar, wind, etc. as budget allows until generator time is minimal. For example - DR1512, EU2000, and a string of batteries from Sam's Club - perhaps $2k total.

We were fortunate to be the telco's guinea pig for a couple of radio systems. The current one gives us multiple POTS lines (although we only use one) plus DSL. Standard bill, same as if we were hard-wired. Satellite intenet and next gen wi-fi brings similar connectivity to just about anyone who needs it.

You have a home shop and an idea for a cheaper alternative to batteries, the cost of which home power users love to complain about. Do I need to spell it out for you? ;-)
Wayne
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.