@WMc--my dad may work at a nuclear test site but it doesn't mean I want to build a nuclear reactor. I'm not even sure why you think I'm trying to build one. There's a reason why the U.S. scrapped the plans to make a nuclear jet during the cold war, it was too dangerous. Now it's engine just sits out in the open decaying and it's hangar bulldozed to the ground.
@Loop--There are multiple ways, including the use of peltiers to generate electricity out of the waste heat and a steam turbine generator. Pumps are necessary to make the engine capable of running in any position, including upside down.
Pure mechanical wouldn't be wise with use in a robot. It is heavier and takes more space, not to mention it's more dangerous if it fails and harder to detect the problem. One good example of this is from the B-2 stealth bomber. Not only does the computer system make the impossible to control flying wing easy to fly, but during one of it's test flights a bomber lost control of one of the rudders but the pilot didn't even know until the jet landed that there was a problem. This is what I want robots running off this type of engine to be like when controlled by a computer system.
peltiers are terribly inefficient at generating electricity from heat. Do not expect to get much power out of them unless you have a lot of them.
I do not think anyone thinks you will seriously try to build a nuclear reactor. Yes it is extremely easy to make a nuclear reactor if you can get your hands on the radioactive elements(A thermopile against a radioactive element is all you need for extremely simple reactor) but to make one that generates lots of power in a small space is a lot harder.
If you want to play baseball, you need a ball a bat, a field and 4 bases. Nobody is going to play if you just provide a ball and three bases.
If you want to design a better thermodynamic engine, you need to create a more efficient means to use whatever the available heat energy is. It is all about those cycles.
That's just the game - either you play with what it requires or you are not playing -- unless you discover some new concept in Physics that stands thermodynamics on its head.
I once worked on a 1.2 billion dollar nuclear reactor that just dumped all its heat into the atmosphere, it didn't produce any electricity. It was a 'research project', a breeder reactor. But that wasn't an engine. It was more like your thermite project than you might realize - just of lot of heat gone to waste. (And wrongly controlled it could just as easily become a hazard.)
From what I can tell, the successful project converted to actually making nuclear fuel, so it was eventually cost effective. But if you are not making fuel, you are buying fuel on the open market. So your future customers want the most efficient use of the fuel you supply. If you have something far less efficient, they will buy your competition's technology and ignore yours.
I'm still not quite sure why thermite and nuclear are still being mentioned.....
It probably has something to do with your first entry stating, "I have powdered aluminum foil and rust swept off the floor of a metal shop and I need to make thermite..."
Note that not everyone reads through all the comments plus your life's history to keep abreast of your latest conceptualizations. Also, consider that you, once upon a time, talked about running your world-dominating robot under water, but some of your more recent entries suggest it's more of an air-breathing machine. Perhaps if you posted comprehensive updates to your concepts, or even started new threads with specific topics or questions, the answers you get might be more apropos.
First of all, there is such thing as an oxygen tank that works underwater. Second, give me the number of the page where I last asked a question. I haven't double checked, but I have the feeling it might be page 1. Not to mention it never got answered...
You need to stop getting so defensive. ElectricEye was just pointing out that people often don't read every single post and giving you good sugestions on how you could get away from the negativitivy asociated with trying to use thermite as part of an engine.
I am glad you dropped the thermite idea. Though your first question was not answered I did tell you how you could get the answer. You just need to wait until you are old enough in your country.
Thermite, nuclear reactors..
Generically all are thermo-dynamic. And you appear to be using an external combustion heat source with steam.
Nuclear reactors in particular generate enormous, if not the greatest amounts of heat for useful work. But that is only the heat creation side of an engine.
The other side is using the heat. These days, staged turbines are considered state of the art for efficiency. Since your design isn't mobile or even likely portable, it would seem best to measure it against what is being done today in thermodynamic design. (A lot of waste is forgiven if a unit is very small, easy, and cheap to use - like a wood or coal burning steam engine on a farm>)
First of all, there is such thing as an oxygen tank that works underwater.......
But I didn't see any sort of oxygen tank on your latest diagram. Instead of "oxygen tank", you show a pipe labelled "intake", after which I see something marked as "air pump" which is followed by a line marked "air" that eventually meets with "fuel".
Other than realizing better why pjv said I was being too defensive, I didn't see any real questions in post #104. The only question there was meant to provide insight on why I liked this engine so much. I really don't think it would be appreciated by forum members if I started a thread titled "Why do I want to build this?"
Comments
@Loop--There are multiple ways, including the use of peltiers to generate electricity out of the waste heat and a steam turbine generator. Pumps are necessary to make the engine capable of running in any position, including upside down.
Pure mechanical wouldn't be wise with use in a robot. It is heavier and takes more space, not to mention it's more dangerous if it fails and harder to detect the problem. One good example of this is from the B-2 stealth bomber. Not only does the computer system make the impossible to control flying wing easy to fly, but during one of it's test flights a bomber lost control of one of the rudders but the pilot didn't even know until the jet landed that there was a problem. This is what I want robots running off this type of engine to be like when controlled by a computer system.
I do not think anyone thinks you will seriously try to build a nuclear reactor. Yes it is extremely easy to make a nuclear reactor if you can get your hands on the radioactive elements(A thermopile against a radioactive element is all you need for extremely simple reactor) but to make one that generates lots of power in a small space is a lot harder.
If you want to design a better thermodynamic engine, you need to create a more efficient means to use whatever the available heat energy is. It is all about those cycles.
That's just the game - either you play with what it requires or you are not playing -- unless you discover some new concept in Physics that stands thermodynamics on its head.
I once worked on a 1.2 billion dollar nuclear reactor that just dumped all its heat into the atmosphere, it didn't produce any electricity. It was a 'research project', a breeder reactor. But that wasn't an engine. It was more like your thermite project than you might realize - just of lot of heat gone to waste. (And wrongly controlled it could just as easily become a hazard.)
From what I can tell, the successful project converted to actually making nuclear fuel, so it was eventually cost effective. But if you are not making fuel, you are buying fuel on the open market. So your future customers want the most efficient use of the fuel you supply. If you have something far less efficient, they will buy your competition's technology and ignore yours.
@loop--what competition?
It probably has something to do with your first entry stating, "I have powdered aluminum foil and rust swept off the floor of a metal shop and I need to make thermite..."
Note that not everyone reads through all the comments plus your life's history to keep abreast of your latest conceptualizations. Also, consider that you, once upon a time, talked about running your world-dominating robot under water, but some of your more recent entries suggest it's more of an air-breathing machine. Perhaps if you posted comprehensive updates to your concepts, or even started new threads with specific topics or questions, the answers you get might be more apropos.
I am glad you dropped the thermite idea. Though your first question was not answered I did tell you how you could get the answer. You just need to wait until you are old enough in your country.
Generically all are thermo-dynamic. And you appear to be using an external combustion heat source with steam.
Nuclear reactors in particular generate enormous, if not the greatest amounts of heat for useful work. But that is only the heat creation side of an engine.
The other side is using the heat. These days, staged turbines are considered state of the art for efficiency. Since your design isn't mobile or even likely portable, it would seem best to measure it against what is being done today in thermodynamic design. (A lot of waste is forgiven if a unit is very small, easy, and cheap to use - like a wood or coal burning steam engine on a farm>)
But I didn't see any sort of oxygen tank on your latest diagram. Instead of "oxygen tank", you show a pipe labelled "intake", after which I see something marked as "air pump" which is followed by a line marked "air" that eventually meets with "fuel".
Entry #104. On my browser, it's page 11.