Hydrogene powered boat

[Yobarnacle]

Here is a quote and it's url, explaining why the BP oil spill dissipated more rapidly than expected.

quote

(petroleum normally leaks from the ocean floor by way of thousands of natural seeps and certain bacteria can consume it.);

end quote

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwat...izon_oil_spill

[thudpucker]

Turbo charging with an Alternator or Generator!

Some time ago I read something about NASA using (Software?) to pick off the tops of the Sine Wave produced by an electrical source.
That would get most of the current available, with the least kinekic energy expended.

How's my theory work?

[MechaNik]

Another thread with little to do about the topic.

ICE marine engines are achieving over 40% efficiency. Commercially, exhaust heat is put to use on preheating bunker fuel, driving vacuum evaporators etc. There are also heat to mechanical recovery items such as the Voith Steam trac. Till we feel the real need to change and build our boats to new ideas nothing will change, for now we will remain selfish and use what we can for as little as possible.

[Submarine Tom]

Naturally aspirated gasoline engine: 24% efficiency.

Your claim of 40% begs credible back-up. What is your source on that one may I ask?

Are you talking deep sea freighters?

-Tom

[thudpucker]

Mech, How big are these engines your talking about.
I'm talking about a 12-25' craft.

[DCockey]

Originally Posted by Submarine Tom

Naturally aspirated gasoline engine: 24% efficiency.

Your claim of 40% begs credible back-up. What is your source on that one may I ask?

Are you talking deep sea freighters?

-Tom

Source of your figure of 24% for a naturally aspirated gasoline engine? I'm sure some engines are that efficient, but my recollection is others are considerably more efficient.

[MechaNik]

I think 40% is realistic from a modern high speed marine diesel. If we where talking in terms of shipping you would be disappointed by that number (probably bankrupt too).

A NA gasoline engine is obviously not in the same ball park as a turbo diesel.

My point was more that there is greater efficiency available, it is only that we choose not to do so. Some people don't even want a turbo due to added complexity and cost so having other exhaust heat recovery methods are still a way off for small crafts.

I would be happy to do some thermal calculations on a specific engine if you like, but easier than that would be to look at specific fuel consumption (grams/KwHr). Anything under 210gram/kwhr is starting to exceed 40% thermal efficiency and anything over about 270 should be below 30%.

Now I haven't done much with car sized engines lately but I know of several in the 300kw+ range that can achieve close to 200grams/KWhr.

[Yobarnacle]

The engines I'm most familiar with, are marinized locomotive engines. My tugs usually have the power of two train engines spinning my props.
Here is a highly technical, scientific, indepth analysis of comparative efficiency between the two predominant locomotive engine makes. GE Alco and EMD.

http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?1,157355

quote:

GE vs. EMD fuel efficiency (long)
Author: LWBAxter
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Here is the real story of how GEs got the reputation of being more fuel efficient than EMDs:
Test train One EMD one GE. Fuel levels measured at start of trip. Going down into the first sag the engineer backs off on the power per company directives to use throttle modulation to save fuel. Coming out of the sag he grabs a notch. The EMD revs up and puls harder. The GE goes chug, chug, chug. Anouther notch. The EMD leans into the train the GE belches a clowd of black smoke. The train crests the hill and the engineer backs off on the throttle. At the end of the run it is determined the EMD has burned 550 gallons of fuel and the GE 450.
Now a more scientific test with the dynomometer car. Same train with two EMDs. Burns 1000 gallons of fuel and produces 900 boogaWatts of work for an efficiency of .9
Same train same run with two GEs. Going into the sag the engineer backs off on the power. Coming out of the sag he gives it a notch. The GEs go chug, chug. He gives it anouther notch. The GEs belch black smoke. the ameeter stays around 100. Anouther notch. The slack runs in. A great ball of fire leaps from the stack. The ameter jumps from 100 to 600 and the locomotives leap forward with a disconcerting run-out. The Conductor glares at the engineer as if to say: "If you break this thing in two, I'm not packing no knuckle". Going down into the next sag: Pshshshsh. (the engineer sets the air) the GEs go chugga-chugga-chugga. Coming out of the sag: Psssss. (release the train air) the GEs go chugga-chugga-chugga. A the end of the run the GEs have burned 1100 gallons of fuel and produced 1100boogaWatts of work for an efficiency of 1.0. 10% better than the EMD!

End quote.

[Boston]

Originally Posted by MechaNik

I would be happy to do some thermal calculations on a specific engine if you like, but easier than that would be to look at specific fuel consumption (grams/KwHr). Anything under 210gram/kwhr is starting to exceed 40% thermal efficiency and anything over about 270 should be below 30%.

Now I haven't done much with car sized engines lately but I know of several in the 300kw+ range that can achieve close to 200grams/KWhr.

I just converted this engine, a international 7.3 1990 in a F250 to run on used motor oil, about 140k BTU's/gl US, It will also run on WVO ( waste veggie oil ) but thats only got about 90k BTU/gl US . I've been really curious to get it dyno'd and find out how my tuning job is. It sounds good and doesn't blow smoke but I'm sure it could use a little more tweaking. I rebuilt it from the rotating assembly up but left off a turbo partly because of expense and partly because I preferred to lower pressure on the back end rather than raise it on the front. I do however have a fat exhaust system off 1.75" headers with a 3' collection chamber, and a heat exchanger on the 4" coupling as well as a cold air intake. Engines got about 100k on it and I didn't want to stress an older engine. Anyway be my guest, whats the thermal efficiency of the old International 7.3 and whats my best theoretical millage out of that thing. The truck weighs in at 6,900 lbs without the big tank.

http://s29.photobucket.com/albums/c2...t=DSCN0257.mp4

[Yobarnacle]

Is this your motor, Boston?

The Power Stroke is an electronically controlled, direct injection engine with a 4.11 in (104 mm) bore and 4.18 in (106 mm) stroke creating a displacement of 444 cu in (7.3 L). It has a 17.5:1 compression ratio, and has a dry weight of approximately 920 lbs. This engine produced up to 250 hp (190 kW) and 505 lb·ft (685 N·m) of torque in automatic trucks during the last years of production, and 275 hp (205 kW) and 520 lb·ft (705 N·m) of torque in manual trucks.

[Boston]

nope

I've got the International, thats power stroke its redesigned by Ford and built by international but its not the one I have . Mines the IDI 7.3 non turbo Internationals famous for never dying engine, something like 170hp but I pulled a few tricks on it like the headers, the 4" exhaust and the cold air intake. I also put all new injection on it as well as just about everything else, then I run it on a 140k btu fuel blend rather than the 120k btu pump diesel. Its all one big fat experiment to see how well it works. Seems to run good, so I'll do the same conversion to another IDI engine for the boat. Probably a Yanmar if I go with two engines or the Mercedes if I go with one. Either way it will be an IDI naturally aspirated engine just like this one.

I've got an exemption on waste oils so I can run on just about anything in that truck.