Would a wind turbine on a moving car generate energy efficiently?

[russ_watters]

A 1500 watt heat strip will radiate 1500 watts of heat, giving a 1:1 ratio, now if a heat pump with a COP of 10 will receive a 1500 watt input and return a heating value of 15,000 watts (in principle) is this basically correct ?

Yes, though a typical heat pump for home heating will only give you a COP of about 4:1.

If that heat pump draws heat from an atmospheric temperature of 90 or 100 degrees will it's efficiency be better or is that COP based on quantity of refrigerant and cycle time and system size ?

The COP is based on the temperature difference between the hot and cold sides. For a residential heat pump, a 4:1 COP is based on about a 90F hot side and 40F cold side for a 50F delta-T.

Is the 15,000 watt equivalent heat from the COP 10 heat pump the same as a 15,000 watt heat strip of 1:1 ratio ?

No. The 15,000 watts from a "heat strip" (assuming you mean a resistive heater) will be vastly hotter.

I'm just guessing here, but I think you're probably operating on misconceptions about how both heat pumps and jet engines work. This sounds like an attempt to violate conservation of energy by making a heat pump provide the input heat for a turbine to generate enough power to drive the heat pump and provide excess energy.

 

[RonL]

Yes, though a typical heat pump for home heating will only give you a COP of about 4:1. The COP is based on the temperature difference between the hot and cold sides. For a residential heat pump, a 4:1 COP is based on about a 90F hot side and 40F cold side for a 50F delta-T. No. The 15,000 watts from a "heat strip" (assuming you mean a resistive heater) will be vastly hotter.

I'm just guessing here, but I think you're probably operating on misconceptions about how both heat pumps and jet engines work. This sounds like an attempt to violate conservation of energy by making a heat pump provide the input heat for a turbine to generate enough power to drive the heat pump and provide excess energy.

Not an attempt to violate conservation of energy, No design can use or store more than 100% of it's design capacity. Thermal energy can be taken in and transformed into mechanical and/or electrical or a combination of both.

We'll assume an electric car and battery storage for getting the car up to speed, now to hold that speed steady an exact amount of energy is drawn from the battery and when reducing speed some regeneration can restore a small amount of the energy used.
Now we can add different types of energy storage, such as flywheel, compressed air, wind driven generator. they all have a capacity that when full cannot be added to and they all will return less energy than what was stored.

Now to recover waste heat or bring in thermal energy to add to the needs of moving the car, it is important (at least in my mind) to consider, thermal and electrical energy can be moved in and out of system boundaries, with no consideration given to PRESSURE.

Compressing air will return high pressure gas flow capable of doing work, at the same time if the compressor is inside a refrigeration unit, the normally wasted heat will build pressure and produce work.
To make use of thermal transfer between systems, a combination of fans with related size and speeds can be designed to produce thrust and at the same time serve as heat exchange condensers or evaporators. This allows the removal of those wind brake radiators.
The fan design is a compromise of efficiency in that maximum thrust is reduced by allowing air to flow between vertical tubes spaced in such manor as to form an almost solid surface and positioned from hub to outer ring in a contour like a solid blade is shaped.
A double wall axle allowing cross flow of liquid/gas, the tubes and outer rim, comprise a complete closed loop heat exchanger and if two or three are working in a cascade fashion will result in a heat transfer from the air into the cold sinks of the A/C units or heat pumps.

This is more like a high volume low speed electric ducted fan model airplane or canister vacuum cleaner, but not so much a jet engine.

If a car is moving at 55 mph, having a slight suction in front and a slight positive thrust in the rear, the total volume of air will bring in heat far in excess of the needs of the demands. At 1 hp per ton of refrigeration, the volume of air holds more heat than a 50F Delta-T would extract. Once the car is steady the Delta would drop and my guess without lots of math, would be in the 10-20 range

If a car is at steady speed and storage systems are full, it will be impossible to extract more energy or produce any extra waste heat.

If I had all the resources needed, I would do it like this and the flywheels can be designed for 5 other options besides kinetic storage. Pulling heat from the air is not a violation, It's just more complicated than the combustion of a charge of fuel.

Ron

 

[russ_watters]

To make use of thermal transfer between systems, a combination of fans with related size and speeds can be designed to produce thrust and at the same time serve as heat exchange condensers or evaporators. This allows the removal of those wind brake radiators.

No, a fan is not an evaporator or condenser, the heat exchangers are evaporators and/or condensers. You're removing one wind-brake radiator and adding two in its place!

All of the rest of the post is incoherent. I'm still not seeing the point.

 

[OmCheeto]

Om, there was that discussion but there could have been so much more

There was https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=180442". That thread convinced me that improving the aerodynamics of a vehicle would yield more energy savings vs. any type of fan/turbine addition.

And there would appear to be more of these threads:

Aug14-07, 05:35 PM
Search the forum on this. There was a lengthly thread about it.

They should put an index at the back of the book, as I cannot find the thread ASN was talking about.

Vehicles
...Cars
...Adding wind turbines(see also: crackpottery, but tolerated due to educational value)

 

[RonL]

No, a fan is not an evaporator or condenser, the heat exchangers are evaporators and/or condensers. You're removing one wind-brake radiator and adding two in its place!

All of the rest of the post is incoherent. I'm still not seeing the point.

Sorry the fan design did not register in your mind, as it is critical to the operation.

I'm sure you have seen a six bladed paint booth exhaust fan, now imagine a tube ring around the six tips, each blade is hollow inside, a circular hole at the root then changing to a flatter rectangular shape where it contacts the outer ring. liquid refrigerant flows outward through three and becomes a gas in the outer tube ring and gas flow returns through the other three, back to the double core hub axle.

If this is spinning at some rate, it will flow the same amount of air as it's original design called for, but if refrigerant flows through the insides of the blades and tube, it will transfer heat out or draw heat in, based on the temperature of the liquid or gas. This in no way retards or changes the performance of the designed air flow, in fact the outer ring will allow for much higher RPM and prevent any distortion of the blade tips. that means much higher thrust can be produced.

Now what I described in that last post is an invention of my mind and you won't find it on any manufacturer's parts list (at least I don't think so) One patentable idea ruined for profit.

The typical A/C system has the generic 1/2 hp motor drawing air through a mass of tubing, using a typical three blade flat, solid sheet paddle, these blades are twist formed to a shape that by design will move a calculated volume of air at a certain speed.

Instead of a stationary mass of tubing flowing refrigerant and having air forced through, I have elected to have sections of tubing standing in-line (or slightly curved) along the hub and as they extend outward to the outer ring, they might be flattened a little (for taking up the space) and formed into a fan like shape.
Due to speed of rotation they will perform as well as a solid blade, but because of the slight space between each tube maximum thrust is compromised in exchange for heat exchange. For a visual image it would look much like a stator fan in the torque converter section of an automatic transmission.

This should have huge value in home or commercial design of A/C systems. (IMHO)

Seals for high speed rotation and high pressure gas are what I think will be hardest to design, but this is not a worry so much as I know this is already a well tested area in design engineering.

If this description is not understood by anyone, then I'll know that I do live in my own little world.

Back to the original topic, no positive energy from air movement due to motion of a car can be obtained, unless there is a thermal reduction of that air.
Cold air requires less energy to move than hot air, does anyone disagree ?
Heat increase in any closed system will cause an increase in pressure ?
Liquid and gas volume will define maximum energy movements within a closed system ?
Heat can be moved in and out of a closed system ?
Electricity can be moved in and out of a closed system ?
Mechanical energy can be moved in and out of a closed system with magnetic couplings?
Kinetic energy can be stored in a flywheel, which can reside inside or outside a closed system?
There are a number of things that can still be brought in, but this list of statements represent a group of actions that can interact in one harmonious motion with one basic thermal conclusion.

Yes it's a LOAD to comprehend! and I know my writing skills suck
But for now it's my best effort.

Ron

PS If this is considered crackpot thinking then I definitely am in the wrong place, but please state what action violates anything and what, why ?

 

[RonL]

There was https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=180442". That thread convinced me that improving the aerodynamics of a vehicle would yield more energy savings vs. any type of fan/turbine addition.

And there would appear to be more of these threads:



They should put an index at the back of the book, as I cannot find the thread ASN was talking about.

Vehicles
...Cars
...Adding wind turbines(see also: crackpottery, but tolerated due to educational value)

Hi Om,
I went back and looked at that thread that you under lined "much more", unless I missed a post, It's interesting to me that Ranger Mike was the first to mention the thought of HEAT, a few post later the thread was locked.
Being able to recover waste heat from a hot engine but not from a mass of warm air, seems a little hypocritcal to me.

Guess I was out working and missed that thread, thanks for linking to it.

A little of what I have been trying to explain, is what I offered to try and pass on to Mike for use on his race car, figured he might be able to calculate things much better and run numbers that are far above my ability.

Thanks
Ron

 

[OmCheeto]

Hi Om,
I went back and looked at that thread that you under lined "much more", unless I missed a post, It's interesting to me that Ranger Mike was the first to mention the thought of HEAT, a few post later the thread was locked.
Being able to recover waste heat from a hot engine but not from a mass of warm air, seems a little hypocritcal to me.

Guess I was out working and missed that thread, thanks for linking to it.

A little of what I have been trying to explain, is what I offered to try and pass on to Mike for use on his race car, figured he might be able to calculate things much better and run numbers that are far above my ability.

Thanks
Ron

I'm hesitant to paraphrase what I think you are describing, but I'll do it anyways.

Are you saying that cooling the air in front of the vehicle via some sort of heat exchanger with the back of the vehicle is going to improve the efficiency of the vehicle?

In a closed system, a thermal gradient can be a source of energy, but in this open system?

If this were true, then you could propel a vehicle in this way. I seriously doubt you could get anything resembling a car to move in this manner without a [STRIKE]gigawatts[/STRIKE] terawatts worth of heat exchangers.

This idea isn't something you've transferred from hot air balloon technology is it?

 

[RonL]

I'm hesitant to paraphrase what I think you are describing, but I'll do it anyways.

Are you saying that cooling the air in front of the vehicle via some sort of heat exchanger with the back of the vehicle is going to improve the efficiency of the vehicle?

In a closed system, a thermal gradient can be a source of energy, but in this open system?

If this were true, then you could propel a vehicle in this way. I seriously doubt you could get anything resembling a car to move in this manner without a [STRIKE]gigawatts[/STRIKE] terawatts worth of heat exchangers.

This idea isn't something you've transferred from hot air balloon technology is it?

Om,
Nearly all my thoughts have evolved from the 60s' dream of a submersible, provoked by J. Cousteau, designed to be free of any surface support in any ocean or body of water that might need some kind of attention. A design that draws it's energy from the water. A design that involves no combustion of any kind that would have a polluting discharge. When R. Ballard showed us Hot Vents at close to 800F degrees, I really got a renewed fever as I had just started study about A/C and heat pumps (recharge points in any ocean who knows where).
Years of working with mechanical things has given a gift (or curse ??) of mixing and matching anything and not be concerned at the start about it being practicable or will it work in a positive way, the answer to failing conditions almost always opens a door to other lines of thought. The thermal exchanging fan is actually a spin-off idea that started as a propeller design for the submersible, A sealed system that moved refrigerant through cross flow shaft and tube, into the hub area then circulating through copper tubing curved to form a shape like a typical propeller. Only problem might be ice buildup, but under what conditions ??

I did just figure a way to phrase a question that will determine the validity of my thinking.

Without any detail of mechanics involved, if we consider a heat pump with a COP of 4:1 and the wattage input is 1,000 required by the motor and if the heat transferred is (equal ??) to 4,000, then if the coils move that heat into a second unit's cold liquid section will the pressure gain in the second unit be based on 1,000 or the 4,000 figure ?

Everything I think I understand is that the 4,000 number is now heat energy available to drive the second unit in some form of conversion.

The numbers don't have to be exact just simply put is this example close to correct ?

Thanks for your help

Ron

PS In answer to your first question, The warm air is drawn in by the spinning fan, heat is taken and adds to the driving system which is composed of several things, as air is moved from intake to cold discharge it might be pulled through even more fans until it's final discharge. The total heat that can be removed will equal the total work required to sustain motion.

 

[OmCheeto]

Cold air requires less energy to move than hot air, does anyone disagree ?

Since http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density_of_air" , it seems to me it would require more energy to move.

ρ=P/(RT): if T goes down, rho goes up

F = ½ρC_dAv²

When rho goes up, so does drag force.

Hmmm... Perhaps we should put a spray mister on the end of a long tube in front of the car, bombard it with microwaves, turning the spray into steam, which when it cools, will produce a vacuum in front of the car, and atmospheric pressure at the rear of the car will provide the propulsive force.

Oh! And put a wind driven fan in there somewhere to power the whole thing. Otherwise I'll be off topic.

 

[stevenb]

There is one practical application—a turbine mounted on a stationary vehicle in the presence of a significant breeze. You could, for instance, stick one on the roof of a parked RV to power your TV or computer. In that case, there would be no parasitic losses to the vehicle.

There is also the case of going down a steep hill. This does not violate the conservation of energy.

 

[RonL]

Since http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density_of_air" , it seems to me it would require more energy to move.

ρ=P/(RT): if T goes down, rho goes up


When rho goes up, so does drag force.

Hmmm... Perhaps we should put a spray mister on the end of a long tube in front of the car, bombard it with microwaves, turning the spray into steam, which when it cools, will produce a vacuum in front of the car, and atmospheric pressure at the rear of the car will provide the propulsive force.

Oh! And put a wind driven fan in there somewhere to power the whole thing. Otherwise I'll be off topic.

First let me make a most important point for any young mind reading this thread. "GET THE EDUCATION" you might have the greatest idea the world has ever seen, but if you can't articulate what's in your mind to other people, it likely will never see the light of day...Again "GET THE EDUCATION".

Om,
I think you are right, but let me see if my "mirror image, reverse logic" can make sense and you still be right.

I found a prop calculator and filled in all the numbers and at the bottom the standard air density was set at 29.92, lowering the number produced less thrust and then raising the number increased thrust, I think we will both agree that a thrust will always have an equal input requirement of power from some source.

But looking at power to compress air, each scf (standard cubic foot)compressed to 200 psi in a single stage compressor will require .250 hp, a two stage will require .230 hp, and a three stage will require .212 hp. At each stage heat has been removed and as a result horse power needs have gone down.

What I have described is a way to remove heat in a volume of air as it is continually reducing in volume in a duct that reduces in size and at the rear the same mass of air is thrusted rearward at a colder temperature than it entered. "if there had been no temperature reduction, more power would have been required to move the mass and a higher temperature discharge would have resulted".

The heat is used to produce pressure in the gases that help drive the primary "power group" that turns the fans and puts work into the motion of the car.

Did the fan design that provides thrust and at the same time removes heat (or if needed adds heat) go unnoticed ? (Russ)? anyone?

Maybe my mind has been inside that little submarine tooo long!

Ron

 

[russ_watters]

Sorry the fan design did not register in your mind, as it is critical to the operation.

A shrouded fan which you pump refrigerant through in order to allow the fan to double as an evaporator. Got it. I highly doubt that the idea would be workable as a commercial product (reliably sealing the tubes in a rotating hub would be near impossible), but even if it could be made to work, I can't see it being efficient at either heat transfer or moving air. For one thing, the vast majority of HVAC evaporator fans aren't axial, but centrifugal. Anyway...

Back to the original topic, no positive energy from air movement due to motion of a car can be obtained, unless there is a thermal reduction of that air.
Cold air requires less energy to move than hot air, does anyone disagree ?

Yes. The energy required to move air - by mass - is independent of temperature. It has to be. The kinetic energy equation is just E=.5MV^2.

Heat increase in any closed system will cause an increase in pressure ?

Temperature increase, yes.

Liquid and gas volume will define maximum energy movements within a closed system ?

That's incoherent. Word salad. Many of those words don't belong in the same sentence with each other. Volume of a closed system has nothing to do with energy movement.

Heat can be moved in and out of a closed system ?
Electricity can be moved in and out of a closed system ?
Mechanical energy can be moved in and out of a closed system with magnetic couplings?

Yes.

Kinetic energy can be stored in a flywheel, which can reside inside or outside a closed system?

No.

Without any detail of mechanics involved, if we consider a heat pump with a COP of 4:1 and the wattage input is 1,000 required by the motor and if the heat transferred is (equal ??) to 4,000, then if the coils move that heat into a second unit's cold liquid section will the pressure gain in the second unit be based on 1,000 or the 4,000 figure ?

What pressure gain? What is a "second unit"? You haven't described the thermodynamic process you are trying to drive! That's the problem that I asked about in my previous post! That said, what it looks like to me is that you think you can use a heat pump to drive power production, in a way that will produce more energy than is consumed. That would be an obvious violation of conservation of energy.

What I need is a concise, coherent description of the process, in single-sentence steps. For a gas turbine, for example, the process looks like this:

1. Incoming air is compressed (and it heats up).
2. Heat is added via a burner.
3. Energy is extracted via a turbine (and the exhaust cools).
4. Exhaust/heat rejection.

It should be possible to describe your process in that short/simple of a format. Please try! Let me help get you started by describing what I see so far:
1. Incoming air is pulled-in by a fan.
2. Incoming air is heated by a heat pump (it may be in the same device, but it is two separate thermodynamic processes).
3. Compress the air (it heats up more).
4. Cool the air using a the other side of the heat pump in #2 (pressure drops).
5. Extract electrical energy via a turbine.
6. Low temperature heat rejection.

Does this come anywhere close to what you are proposing?

 

[RonL]

A shrouded fan which you pump refrigerant through in order to allow the fan to double as an evaporator. Got it. I highly doubt that the idea would be workable as a commercial product (reliably sealing the tubes in a rotating hub would be near impossible), but even if it could be made to work, I can't see it being efficient at either heat transfer or moving air. For one thing, the vast majority of HVAC evaporator fans aren't axial, but centrifugal. Anyway... Yes. The energy required to move air - by mass - is independent of temperature. It has to be. The kinetic energy equation is just E=.5MV^2.
Temperature increase, yes. That's incoherent. Word salad. Many of those words don't belong in the same sentence with each other. Volume of a closed system has nothing to do with energy movement. Yes.
No. What pressure gain? What is a "second unit"? You haven't described the thermodynamic process you are trying to drive! That's the problem that I asked about in my previous post! That said, what it looks like to me is that you think you can use a heat pump to drive power production, in a way that will produce more energy than is consumed. That would be an obvious violation of conservation of energy.

What I need is a concise, coherent description of the process, in single-sentence steps. For a gas turbine, for example, the process looks like this:

1. Incoming air is compressed (and it heats up).
2. Heat is added via a burner.
3. Energy is extracted via a turbine (and the exhaust cools).
4. Exhaust/heat rejection.

It should be possible to describe your process in that short/simple of a format. Please try! Let me help get you started by describing what I see so far:
1. Incoming air is pulled-in by a fan.
2. Incoming air is heated by a heat pump (it may be in the same device, but it is two separate thermodynamic processes).
3. Compress the air (it heats up more).
4. Cool the air using a the other side of the heat pump in #2 (pressure drops).
5. Extract electrical energy via a turbine.
6. Low temperature heat rejection.

Does this come anywhere close to what you are proposing?

Russ,
Thanks for being patient with me and thanks for the suggestion about how to keep my thoughts in a short, simple, step by step method.

I think you have misinterpreted a few things that I have tried to imply, but that's OK for now, I'll try to address each and every one as this progresses.

Wow! the flywheel is the last thing I would have expected you to disagree with, if you can give the reason I would be thankful.

My next few days are going to be pretty full, but I will carry a note pad and try to jot down little bits at a time and maybe by Thursday of the coming week I can make a decent post.

I do hope you understand that even if I have not worded things well, I have always maintained staying within the first two laws.

Guess I better not try to say anything else, except THANKS.

Ron

 

[russ_watters]

Wow! the flywheel is the last thing I would have expected you to disagree with, if you can give the reason I would be thankful.

Actually, I'm not sure how that got in there - it must have been an editing mistake. A flywheel is a flywheel - it is an energy storage device and it has no relevance whatsoever to the discussion.

 

[RonL]

Actually, I'm not sure how that got in there - it must have been an editing mistake. A flywheel is a flywheel - it is an energy storage device and it has no relevance whatsoever to the discussion.

I might be wrong to think it's needed, but in my mind I see a need to use a storage of some kind to carry a cycle above and below it's steady state flow. Hope that's not word salad.

 

[OmCheeto]

Om,
I think you are right, but let me see if my "mirror image, reverse logic" can make sense and you still be right.

I found a prop calculator and filled in all the numbers and at the bottom the standard air density was set at 29.92, lowering the number produced less thrust and then raising the number increased thrust,

Yes.

I think we will both agree that a thrust will always have an equal input requirement of power from some source.

Power = Thrust * Velocity (according to wiki)

But looking at power to compress air, each scf (standard cubic foot)compressed to 200 psi in a single stage compressor will require .250 hp, a two stage will require .230 hp, and a three stage will require .212 hp. At each stage heat has been removed and as a result horse power needs have gone down.

This is where I start having a problem.
As soon as you start incorporating heat transfer, you are going to have to deal with the second law of thermodynamics, and the dreaded http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/carnot.html#c1".

What I have described is a way to remove heat in a volume of air as it is continually reducing in volume in a duct that reduces in size and at the rear the same mass of air is thrusted rearward at a colder temperature than it entered. "if there had been no temperature reduction, more power would have been required to move the mass and a higher temperature discharge would have resulted".

The heat is used to produce pressure in the gases that help drive the primary "power group" that turns the fans and puts work into the motion of the car.

Without ever inserting numbers into your theory, you will never know how inefficient it would really be.

And without having a clue as to what your contraption looks like, aka a schematic, we can't plug the numbers in for you.

 

[kmarinas86]

It seems like a wind turbine would be used to generate electricity.

So why not just have the wind turbine where it belongs and just plug in the vehicle to the grid to recharge?

Far better improvements can be made by making cars as aerodynamic as airplanes.

Adding windmills to cars to generate energy is a stupid idea.

 

[RonL]

It seems like a wind turbine would be used to generate electricity.

So why not just have the wind turbine where it belongs and just plug in the vehicle to the grid to recharge?

Far better improvements can be made by making cars as aerodynamic as airplanes.

Adding windmills to cars to generate energy is a stupid idea.

Everything you say is "precisely true". The question is, what if anything, can move it beyond the stupid point??

I say yes.

There is only time for this short answer.

Ron

 

[RonL]

Yes.

Power = Thrust * Velocity (according to wiki)

This is where I start having a problem.
As soon as you start incorporating heat transfer, you are going to have to deal with the second law of thermodynamics, and the dreaded http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/carnot.html#c1".


Without ever inserting numbers into your theory, you will never know how inefficient it would really be.

And without having a clue as to what your contraption looks like, aka a schematic, we can't plug the numbers in for you.

Hi Om,
Don't have time right now, but will get back later this evening.

I really have never fully understood the Carnot cycle, but isn't it describing a single machine or process cycle ?

I'm working on Russ's suggestion, so I'll throw your posts in as well.

Thanks

Ron

 

[russ_watters]

The Carnot cycle is simply the ideal thermodynamic cycle, containing the four basic processes (there are always variants of them...) in any thermodynamic cycle. Learning it is a critical part of the beginning of learning thermodynamic analysis. If you tell us what, specifically, you don't understand about it, maybe we can help...

 

[RonL]

The Carnot cycle is simply the ideal thermodynamic cycle, containing the four basic processes (there are always variants of them...) in any thermodynamic cycle. Learning it is a critical part of the beginning of learning thermodynamic analysis. If you tell us what, specifically, you don't understand about it, maybe we can help...

It just seems hard to comprehend motion of a piston movement and under different conditions not having changes of measurement, (heat or pressure). I don't for a moment doubt it's validity. I think it has more to do with not having a good recall of all terms and definitions of things associated with thermodynamics and the Carnot cycle.

My big fear is that age is beginning to show signs of memory loss and poor comprehension, not that they have ever been all that great.

Just found an area of wiki that has a lot of information about air handling equipment as used in aircraft, not a lot of overlapping systems and not very high pressure, but quite similar to what I am trying to describe.

I have made a little progress in your suggestion about presentation, but am finding it hard to make short statements about things that involve a multiple of actions happening at the same time and having positive and negative values that are conditioning different parts of each system.

I'll try to get a little more done tomorrow.

Thanks
Ron

 

[RonL]

An hour of typing, I hit the space bar and everything blinked and went away, second time in a week, does anyone know why this happens ??

Ron

 

[RonL]

Om, as you suggested.
It might be good to setup some numbers of what is being competed with in current transportation power use.
A. Conventional gasoline has a BTU value of about 125,000 per gallon.
B. 25% efficiency gives a net applied value of 31,250 BTU
C. 20 mile per gallon internal combustion engine powering the vehicle.
D. Speed of 60 miles per hour.

3 gallons used gives a total BTU rate of 93,750/60 minutes = 1562.5/42.4 = 36.85 HP

The weight of the vehicle will be determined by how efficiently the air flow drag, drive line friction, and tires in contact with road surface can be tweaked.

The question first presented has been changed to something like, "can any of those 1562.5 BTU's expended, be recovered, using a turbine or fan design?" I have stated "no...unless a thermal exchange can come into play".

Has that changed the thread to a point of starting a new thread and linking this one to it? I guess this question is directed to Russ.

I'm stopping here for now.

Ron

 

[RonL]

In an effort to draw energy from air that moves through a system, two methods are being considered.
1. A fan design that serves as a heat engine, more than one system of thermal exchange can be incorporated within a single rotating set, I have eliminated the need for seals.

2. A compressed air system that flows through the inner portions of the heat engine.

A question based on my understanding,
Would all energy used in compressing air inside the correct portion of a heat engine, be reflected in the final pressure of the air and all heat of compression normally wasted to the atmosphere, will show as an increase to a certain pressure of the heat pump gas? these TWO pressures based on volume would equal the same potential as the energy expended in the compression of the air.

One step of several.

Ron

 

[OmCheeto]

Om, as you suggested.
It might be good to setup some numbers of what is being competed with in current transportation power use.
A. Conventional gasoline has a BTU value of about 125,000 per gallon.
B. 25% efficiency gives a net applied value of 31,250 BTU
C. 20 mile per gallon internal combustion engine powering the vehicle.
D. Speed of 60 miles per hour.

3 gallons used gives a total BTU rate of 93,750/60 minutes = 1562.5/42.4 = 36.85 HP

The weight of the vehicle will be determined by how efficiently the air flow drag, drive line friction, and tires in contact with road surface can be tweaked.

The question first presented has been changed to something like, "can any of those 1562.5 BTU's expended, be recovered, using a turbine or fan design?" I have stated "no...unless a thermal exchange can come into play".

Has that changed the thread to a point of starting a new thread and linking this one to it? I guess this question is directed to Russ.

I'm stopping here for now.

Ron

This is starting to remind me of my https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=203654" threads here at the forum. As such, I'd say we are getting way off topic.

 

[RonL]

This is starting to remind me of my https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=203654" threads here at the forum. As such, I'd say we are getting way off topic.

Thanks Om,
I'll sit quietly for a while and follow the links in those two post, I guess one of my problems is that I can't find any words in the 1st and 2nd law that says I have to waste heat!

You now have all those phrases and no change actions cleared up in your mind?

I did find some wiki stuff that might help me work numbers into what my mind sees and I can never forget touching a hot compressor head, then a little later watch ice specks fly out of an air tool exhaust. Stuff like that just keeps me messed up

Oh well guess I need to get ready for tomorrow, sighhh.

Ron

 

[RonL]

This is starting to remind me of my https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=203654" threads here at the forum. As such, I'd say we are getting way off topic.

The op is asking based on a hood ornament, the discussion expanded to a larger windmill or turbine and I have jumped to thermal transfer. I see the connection all the way through, but then that's me. The point and my concern...no longer a hood ornament.

Ron

 

[OmCheeto]

Thanks Om,
I'll sit quietly for a while and follow the links in those two post, I guess one of my problems is that I can't find any words in the 1st and 2nd law that says I have to waste heat!

You now have all those phrases and no change actions cleared up in your mind?

Actually, I was just reviewing all of that 2nd law stuff, and I think I might see where you are coming from.

I did find some wiki stuff that might help me work numbers into what my mind sees and I can never forget touching a hot compressor head, then a little later watch ice specks fly out of an air tool exhaust. Stuff like that just keeps me messed up

Oh well guess I need to get ready for tomorrow, sighhh.

Ron

I've seen the same things Ron. Though the hot compressor head and ice specks tell me that we just haven't given a hoot about throwing energy away in the past. And probably you too.

I've an out of state wedding to prepare for and go to this weekend, so I'll also be a bit late coming back analyzing where such wastes of thermal energy can be recovered in our hood ornament quest for knowledge.

 

[RonL]

Actually, I was just reviewing all of that 2nd law stuff, and I think I might see where you are coming from.


I've seen the same things Ron. Though the hot compressor head and ice specks tell me that we just haven't given a hoot about throwing energy away in the past. And probably you too.

I've an out of state wedding to prepare for and go to this weekend, so I'll also be a bit late coming back analyzing where such wastes of thermal energy can be recovered in our hood ornament quest for knowledge.

OK, hope this doesn't mess your weekend up

Instead of detailed mechanics I'll describe where my thoughts have developed, then one or two additional post just so there is no big loss if everything disappears, as has happened before.

Helped someone rod out a 50 ton system years ago, it had a 50 HP motor and a chill water cooling tower outside. The refrigeration cycle required a steady supply of electrical power to drive the 50 HP motor. What impressed me most was the 3/4 HP electric motor that pumped cool water through the water/refrigerant heat exchange unit and out to the open air cooling tower. This has always amazed me that so much heat transition can take place with such a small 3/4 HP motor.
The entire system is stationary, bolted to the concrete floor, so over time as my understanding started to grow a little, my thoughts went to "putting the system on 4 wheels at say 60 MPH".

I'm going to post and pick up the next thought on the next post. (just being safe)

 

[RonL]

OK, hope this doesn't mess your weekend up

Instead of detailed mechanics I'll describe where my thoughts have developed, then one or two additional post just so there is no big loss if everything disappears, as has happened before.

Helped someone rod out a 50 ton system years ago, it had a 50 HP motor and a chill water cooling tower outside. The refrigeration cycle required a steady supply of electrical power to drive the 50 HP motor. What impressed me most was the 3/4 HP electric motor that pumped cool water through the water/refrigerant heat exchange unit and out to the open air cooling tower. This has always amazed me that so much heat transition can take place with such a small 3/4 HP motor.
The entire system is stationary, bolted to the concrete floor, so over time as my understanding started to grow a little, my thoughts went to "putting the system on 4 wheels at say 60 MPH".

I'm going to post and pick up the next thought on the next post. (just being safe)

What changes need to take place? First look at what happens with no attempt at energy generation or recovery.

Put the car in motion at say 60 MPH, electric drive system and plenty of battery supply for a short time. If 50 HP is being expended to maintain speed, the generated apparent wind will turn the fan we have been talking about at less than the wind speed, but if a second motor is engaged to turn the fan, only a small amount of power will need to be added to bring the fan to a neutral speed in relation to the apparent wind, (maybe 5 HP) if a little more power is added (5 HP) the fan produces a very small suction in front and a very small thrust in rear, somewhere in there will be a zero point where the two motors are in balance with respect to total power needed, at that point any increase of power to the small motor will reflect an equal drop in the larger motor.
No energy recovered = a total negative expense.