Panoramix
Super Anarchist
No way, or may be a super tanker super slow super compressed engine. It is impossible to get close to the Carnot theoretical efficiency for practical reasons.
The future of diesel inboards in an all electric future
- Thread starter MiddayGun
- Start date
Engine efficiency - Wikipedia
Best-ever efficiency points to clean, green gas-diesel engine
The one-cylinder test engine in the basement of a University of Wisconsin-Madison lab is connected to a life-support system of pipes, tubes, ducts and cables. You might think that the engine resembles a patient in intensive care, but in this case, the patient is not sick. Instead, the elaborate...
news.wisc.edu
Panoramix
Super Anarchist
Yes"Low speed diesel engines like the MAN S80ME-C7 have achieved an overall energy conversion efficiency of 54.4%"Engine efficiency - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
note last paragraphBest-ever efficiency points to clean, green gas-diesel engine
The one-cylinder test engine in the basement of a University of Wisconsin-Madison lab is connected to a life-support system of pipes, tubes, ducts and cables. You might think that the engine resembles a patient in intensive care, but in this case, the patient is not sick. Instead, the elaborate...
That is lab efficiency on a "truck-sized engine" ie not a truck engine. In real life if you get to 50% efficiency you can be proud of yourself!
floater
Super Duper Anarchist
well. either proud of yourself. or an enemy to all of humanity..
Last edited:
That they road tested in a 2009 Saturn, right?
they got to 95%. Is that close?
Panoramix
Super Anarchist
If all the sail boaters engines were stopped it would be the equivalent of how many super containers emissions being stopped?
There is simply no point in going after sail boaters. They are a small fraction of a fraction of the emissions we need to address. They hav political power and can vote.
Carbon emissions are not a problem. Gigatonnes of carbon emissions are the problem.
And it is very easy to switch diesels to a carbon neutral oil source.
Much easier than explosive hydrogen management.
But it is also wrong and stupid, right.
And those who find your opinion wrong and stupid are free to mock you publicly for it, right?
False equivalency.
The idea that binding a free willed human to chattel slavery is the same as said human shaping various materials into a useful objects is insane and stupid.
This is still your opinion, right? Becasue if you are trying to make an ethical argument, said argument is dumb and stupid.
Hold on. You do know you emit C02, right? If you are saying that ALL C02 emissions need to be reduced then what does that mean for your continued breathing?
I might suggest that all C02 emissions are not the same. Closed loop carbon emissions are not the problem. Creating gigatonnes of C02 from stored carbon, when there are resonable or even expensive options/alternatives, is the problem. These are the C02 emissions that need eliminated.
When in an emergency, one needs to focus on the problem.
This kind of extremism is silly.
Much more harm is done on each and every freeway in America than all the sailboats combined.
welcome to Seattle
Boathavn
Hof & Gammel Dansk - Skål !
Boathavn
Hof & Gammel Dansk - Skål !
Two-stroke vehicles are not banned in Seattle. I own one of the four two-stroke SAABs still running in the State of Washington.
However, a grasp on reality and common sense by elected officials was banned long ago...
seandepagnier
New member
ok. thank you. I really only want to talk about what is possible here. Your comment about the bags being fragile in the ama is of real concern too, I think bungees can suspend them? This is a difficult problem but the potential is there.
I came the the conclusion that I wont get electricity back. If that is a hard requirement, hydrogen becomes less viable with low cost constraints. My conclusion is it can offset cooking needs as electrolyzing water is already 70% efficient with a crude setup, and urine only improves this to actually give more energy than power input from something normally wasted. There is generally enough hydrogen in urine to power at least 1/3rd of cooking needs by my initial calculations which is significant. I also use solar oven for half my cooking.
Have you ever set a bag of hydrogen that size off? I have blown up several for fun, I can tell you it is semi-dangerous but unlikely to do much more than burn your hair if you are at least 3ft away. if it went off in the ama and you are outside the risk is negligible. It could be considered dangerous because it can go off much more easily (more volatile) but this is only possible if there is some kind of static discharge or spark and if there is too much oxygen contaminating the hydrogen.
Lets be honest, hydrogen is generally not as dangerous as propane. it floats away and doesn't accumulate, and the total energy released if it somehow goes off isnt enough to do the kind of harm propane does, because we are working with 1-2% of the energy (or less), and rather than refilling the tank every few months, it refills every sunny day so the storage is only for 2-3 days of cooking.
unlike gasoline also it wont set the boat on fire either.
It is a good question, I have worked with water with acceptable results (1-2 liters/min at 250 watt) but for urine the hydrogen production is reportedly 3x as much with the same power. It depends if you use a vacuum pump and liquify ammonia then electrolyze that in which case the breakdown voltage 0.2 volts (vs 1.4 for water) would yield significantly more gas, but I am not sure exactly how to do this, and working with pure ammonia has many issues.
It could be really interesting to produce and store liquid ammonia from urine, because ammonia has 40% the energy of diesel is quite compact fuel you get a few more ounces for free every day it could translate into liters per year. Then using a small amount of electricity crack it releasing 6 times the electricity used to do so in hydrogen energy you could produce hydrogen from it and consume on the fly without needing to store the hydrogen.
For straight urine gas production starts around 0.7 volts still much less than the 2 volts (for practical production of water) It is somewhat difficult to get good efficiency with a small scale.
It can't work on a boat generally. This is because it needs a stable bacteria colony and temperature. To achieve this is really really difficult even with 50 gallon drums, and this is already impractically large and heavy.
Any digester I know of in general operation is physically too large and would be impractical, even on a ship it would be very heavy for what it could process and produce.
There are thermophiles which digest much much faster than the standard bacteria so could greatly reduce the size of the digester, so could potentially work, but they need to maintain very high temperatures as well in a stable colony. I dont know if it's possible or not, I invite anyone to try, it might require vacuum insulation for a start.
A more viable way is to simply bake the shit in a solar oven into "coal". You end up with something resembling coal with similar energy density with the right pressure and temperature and duration. Then you can store it as a solid fuel and burn it, etc.. This also solves the issues of pump out and would provide enough energy for cooking (if done efficiently). It is more efficient than a digester because no energy is lost in bacteria.
The word is "accusing" not "screaming" and not for disagreeing, but for causing excessive pollution.
Actually it is a huge portion of the 8 billion people on this planet would agree with me. They have no interest in people motoring private yachts and if posed the question in the right way, most humans would agree it is wrong to cause pollution just for personal convenience in the way people typically use engines on boats
This is a commonly repeated flawed argument. Essentially you could say also that wind turbines are the same as oil power because they used oil to make the wind turbine. So therefore there is no point in using wind turbines. This is what your argument is the same as: It doesn't make any sense
By "most" you mean a few percent of the world's population that live in the richest countries.
50l is more fuel than many humans burn in a year. Most people do not own a car. Most people do not eat meat every day. 85% of humans have never flown. 1% of people cause 95% of all aviation emissions etc. The richest most entitled people in the world tend to own yachts. As such they can afford to cause the least emissions yet, the statistics show the opposite, and those with more money tend to cause more emissions.
It depends. I suggest 10 pounds of lithium battery which in production causes the emissions same as 30 liters of diesel not even including emissions in refining and transporting etc. My battery lasts several years. If you take into account battery recycling in the future, the emissions are much less.
So this 50-100 liters is already 5-10 times more emissions and significantly more diesel than is used to transport the food I buy in a year etc. But the thing is.. you already have a battery too, so this 50-100 liters is just excess.
Define "bum"
I did not claim to have no impact. I am claiming people burning diesel engines in boats generally have unnecessary and excessive impact.
Do you produce all your own food and equipment? If not then you are a "bum" also. I am criticizing people who motor against the tide, who use the engine to get through doldrums not this.
It is a bit absurd to build windfarms offshore when they could be inshore. There is enough wind resources in protected waters like lakes, rivers, sounds, and even just on land. I read the offshore wind cost a lot more too. It seems a bit absurd to put them where it is so expensive to service and the emissions are also several times more to install wind farms offshore. Regardless, it is nice you do this work and try to make a change, but I dont see it as a reason or excuse to do something else.
Comparing what some ship uses to service a windfarm to your personal consumption does not really make much sense without division. That ship probably serves to provide the needs of thousands of people making 2000 liters a fractional amount per person.
It is an entitled mentality that the richest people in the world think they have the right to cause vastly more emissions than most people. At 50 liters of diesel per person per year to burn in excess (for no real need) serves to make most carbon targets impossible to reach and is therefore an unreasonable amount of consumption. A realistic amount is 1-2 liters per year, or make your own coconut oil if you need a few more liters.
I dont think they will be illegal everywhere anytime soon. Maybe in nordic countries or more and more in certain areas like rivers and lakes etc.
I dont even have an issue with them if they are not running on fossil fuels, and that is what may be illegal soon. This simply means the fuel cost will be orders of magnitude higher in the future but not illegal.
Last edited:
Fah Kiew Tu
Curmudgeon, First Rank
OK so I read that long post by BA and my conclusion is - he's done jack shit except google a lot.
Plenty of uses of words like 'reportedly' but zero uses or examples of 'I have built'.
So - pfffft. Another bullshit artist.
FKT
Plenty of uses of words like 'reportedly' but zero uses or examples of 'I have built'.
So - pfffft. Another bullshit artist.
FKT
seandepagnier
New member
I use duckduckgo not google. Maybe it is you who has done nothing but google?
as noted I am in an early prototype phase (had hydrogen balloon float away and blew one up etc..) I am only replicating what people have shown on youtube with this anyway you can find their videos.
I have no desire to prove anything to you, and for this reason with so many initial negative remarks, I purposefully have not posted any evidence.
Last edited:
Israel Hands
Super Anarchist
Last edited:
Monkey
Super Anarchist
- 11,362
- 3,012
Having a balloon float away is a long cry from a prototype phase.
Gunny
Member
I’m investing in extension cords now.
floater
Super Duper Anarchist
we need some competition here. if you were to write a send-up, like a parody of the most outlandish pov you could possibly find. what would you do? I heard one guy was going to split water using the sun and then put it back together again into commercial natural gas. no. that doesn't sound right. or. how about capturing farts in the fore-peak and using those to fire the cooker in the morning? no..
Fah Kiew Tu
Curmudgeon, First Rank
Pretty hard to post what you haven't done, hey? Much easier to bullshit endlessly on a forum while claiming the virtue mantle for non-achievement. I do wonder where you clowns come from, seems there's an endless supply. Another forum I hang out on, it's the perpetual motion clowns who want someone else to build their models based on a napkin sketch, no toleranced dimensions, no materials specifications and all on the basis of a profit share when the invention wiped out the competition.
We have an iron-clad rule - money up front. Amazing how they - and people like you - disappear when hard cash or working prototypes are the price of entry. You've got nothing and you don't have the ability to make anything so there's no chance you'll ever have a closed cycle working prototype of your stream of consciousness trimaran full of piss & hydrogen.
I've posted info on a number of projects I've done over on CA, FWIW. Including pix of work in progress and end result. And am quite happy to admit to a very large number of failures. In fact I'm working on my next likely failure right now.
FKT
slap
Super Anarchist
Hitchens's razor:
"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."
Bump-n-Grind
Get off my lawn.
FS, is the gray "rejected energy" defined as heat loss energy? or something similar?
