Hybrid Ship Pulse Detonation Turbine to DC Electrics

StianM and Yipster

Here is a report done on fuel burning of PDE

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=15362753

Titre du document / Document title
Energy and exergy analyses of the pulse detonation engine
Auteur(s) / Author(s)
HUTCHINS T. E. (1) ; METGHALCHI M. (1) ;
Affiliation(s) du ou des auteurs / Author(s) Affiliation(s)
(1) Mechanical, Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering Department, Northeastern University, Boston, MA 02115, ETATS-UNIS

Résumé / Abstract
Energy and exergy analyses have been performed on a pulse detonation engine. A pulse detonation engine is a promising new engine, which uses a detonation wave instead of a deflagration wave for the combustion process. The high-speed supersonic combustion wave reduces overall combustion duration resulting in an nearly constant volume energy release process compared to the constant pressure process of gas turbine engines. Gas mixture in a pulse detonation engine has been modeled to execute the Humphrey cycle. The cycle includes four processes: isentropic compression, constant volume combustion, isentropic expansion, and isobaric compression. Working fluid is a fuel-air mixture for unburned gases and products of combustion for burned gases. Different fuels such as methane and JP10 have been used. It is assumed that burned gases are in chemical equilibrium states. Both thermal efficiency and effectiveness (exergetic efficiency) have been calculated for the pulse detonation engine and simple gas turbine engine. Comparison shows that for the same pressure ratio pulse detonation engine has better efficiency and effectiveness than the gas turbine system.
Revue / Journal Title
Journal of engineering for gas turbines and power (J. eng. gas turbine power) ISSN 0742-4795 CODEN JETPEZ
Source / Source
2003, vol. 125, no4, pp. 1075-1080 [6 page(s) (article)] (19 ref.)
Langue / Language
Anglais

Editeur / Publisher
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, NY, ETATS-UNIS (1984) (Revue)

Mots-clés anglais / English Keywords
Thermal efficiency ; Methane ; Air ; Fuel ; Working fluid ; Compression ; Gas mixture ; Gas turbine ; Pressure ; Combustion ; Wave ; Detonation ; Exergy analysis ; Fuel mixture ; Gas engine ;
Mots-clés français / French Keywords
Rendement thermique ; Méthane ; Air ; Combustible ; Fluide travail ; Compression ; Mélange gaz ; Turbine gaz ; Pression ; Combustion ; Onde ; Détonation ; Analyse exergétique ; Mélange carburant ; Moteur gaz ;

001d06d03d ; 230 ;
Mots-clés espagnols / Spanish Keywords
Rendimiento térmico ; Metano ; Aire ; Combustible ; Fluido trabajo ; Compresión ; Mezcla gas ; Turbina gas ; Presión ; Combustión ; Onda ; Detonación ; Análisis exergético ; Mezcla carburante ; Motor gas ;
Localisation / Location
INIST-CNRS, Cote INIST : 6120 A, 35400011898443.0280


Copyright 2006 INIST-CNRS. All rights reserved

Toute reproduction ou diffusion même partielle, par quelque procédé ou sur tout support que ce soit, ne pourra être faite sans l'accord préalable écrit de l'INIST-CNRS.
No part of these records may be reproduced of distributed, in any form or by any means, without the prior written permission of INIST-CNRS.

Nº notice refdoc (ud4) : 15362753

 

here tesla's valveless valve you named for a turbine
and here valve drawings for a hybrid pulse piston turbine by pioneer Paul Schmidt
all planty interesting but apart from some testbeds and a misterious aurora
i havent heard of any attempts for boat propulsion yet so keep me updated

 

Yipster,

You are correct I have not seen anyone doing this work for ship propulsion. Hopefully this will be a new and unique project for the time being. My hopes are that by combining these three technologies we can come up with a very good propulsion power system. The links of technologies are as follows;

1) Waste Oil
Standard 3 point contaminant filtering

2) Pyrocatalytic Conversion

3) Fuel pre-processing

4) Pulse Detonation
6 x PDE's

5) Tesla Turbine
3 x pairs of 350HP turbines

6) AC Generators
3 x 500KW by 600v

7) DC conversion and control electronics

8) DC electric Motors
2 x 600HP Mains and 1 x 500HP Bow Thruster

9) 600vac to 220 and 115 transformers, multiple for ships services.

Seabird

 

Good Morning All,

Well I have hired a friend who is fantastic with CAD/CAM software and I have completed the dimensions and calculations for the Tesla Trubine. Hopefully by the end of this week we'll be in final drawing review and next week order the first metal parts for the turbine. The Tesla turbine will be 18" really 17.75" by 12 platters since Tesla was able to get 200hp out of 25 9.75" platters this should work well. The reason for the larger platters is RPM I want to have the Tesla turbine spinning at about 6000 rpm fully loaded with 10,000 rpm being near 100% turbine speed. Tesla turbines run best for torque at about 60-75% of full speed. At 6000 rpms I'll need to run a 3.5 to 1 pully ratio for the generator and maintain a fairly tight control of rpms through power ramp up. Should be fun.

I was fortunate enough to find, on the ship, a 3-phase 60hp moter in great shape and not being used as well as a high pressure boiler for steam washing.

With these two parts we should be able to have a test up and running in about three weeks. Please log on to the site www.seabirdadventure.com for the pictures and discussions that will ensue. Also I will try to post the pics here for all the readers here.

SeaBird

PS Wish me luck.

 

Hello Again,

:idea: In a few days the website will have the details for what's going on but for now the rundown is as follows;

I have hired an engineering team to re-design the entire propulsion and generation for the Sea Bird.

The 2 550hp D379 will be replaced with 2 600hp DC electric motors on direct drive and the 479hp 12v71 will be replace with a 500hp DC electric motor. This gives the ships propulsion a 1700hp top for power budget. At 1700hp take this times 746 for watts and we get 1.268MW of power with power conversion losses and motor losses we have a required power budget of 1.648MW.

So the generation plan requires that at any one time one of the 3 generators may need to be off line for maintenance leaving us with a 850KW per generator requirement. This gives a 1.7MW per pair and a 2.55MW total power budget for the ship. Now the trick will be if this is to tight to increase to 900KW gens instead, we'll see.

I've decided to go with all digital control surfaces both in engineering and on the bridge for complete on demand managed control of all systems.

Question: Do any of you folks know of a good manufacture for large air scrubbers? I want all air brought into engineering and all other cabin space to be around 30%rh and zero particulates especially salt

Thanks,

SeaBird

 

Have you looked into Gasification?http://www.encomgroup.com/gasification.htm
http://www.inetlink.ca/a31ford/cgcmb/
http://www.cns-snc.ca/Bulletin/plasmagasification.html
Here are some links, I hope it will help.

 

Seabird,

If you want to bring low humidity air to living and engineering spaces, you'll need a filtration system and a desiccant dehumidifier with air cooling coils. I don't know of a dry scrubber that would do what you want. A filter with impingement plates to knock down water droplets will start the cleaning process. Rh, relative humidity, is a measure of the water vapor (gaseous phase) in the air, and is partly a function of the air temperature. Simply put, hot air can hold more water vapor than cool air. 40% rh @ 95 deg F is nearly twice as much moisture as 50% rh @ 70 deg F. The simplest way to remove moisture from air is to cool it. The water coming out of the drain of all air conditioning systems is the excess water vapor which has condensed as the air is cooled. This takes energy, of course, and it leaves the air saturated, i.e. it is holding the maximum moisture it can, although that amount is less than if it were warm. To get your 30% rh at a temperature of 70 deg F will require a regenerating desiccant system. Desiccant removes moisture from air by adsorption, and can, theoretically, remove all moisture from the air. But it takes energy to regenerate the desiccant. The best systems use a nonmetallic rotor impregnated with the desiccant and perforated with thousands of tiny honeycomb style pores. The rotor rotates slowly and one side is always removing moisture while the other is being regenerated with hot air.

The system requires energy, but the rotor and circulating fan motors are relatively small electrical loads. The main energy consumer is the regeneration air heater, which can run on turbine waste heat. It would take some application engineering, but it should fit into your plan.

 

http://www.seabirdadventure.com/pulse_combustion_turbine

Wow, this project has really progressed.

 

So how is this project going????????????

 

Good Morning Kay9

Things are progressing well, but slower then I would like. The slowest part is keeping the web site up to date with all that has transpired.

SeaBird is now in dry dock in Seattle WA, we had an aborted attempt here in San Diego due to the dry dock crane only being 650 gross ton rated and the ship being 830 gross tons we have this on film both the aborted attempt and the journey to Seattle.

The Turbine is complete however the mechanical engineer who was doing the drafting for me has become a problem child so we are trying to some to a middle ground of understanding to move forward, sigh.

So the PDE part of the project has come to a standstill until I either get this engineer back on track or find a new one that doesn’t have some of the legal troubles this one does.

We will be posting allot of pictures and a fair amount of write ups on all that has gone on. Also I am traveling to the Midwest to look at the G50 Baldor AC motors and drivers that will become the main propulsion for the Seabird.

That’s it for now, thanks for checking up.

SeaBird

 

Thanks. I went to the site and didnt see anything so Its great to hear you guys are still working on it. I love the hull, if you find yourself in need of a 1600t Master with Oceans endorsements as well as GMDSS and STCW-95 let me know. In on the Oregon Coast.

 

The Dirtier the fuel, the dirtier the exhaust - unless you clean it via scrubbers. I think your working backwards. Instead of engineering the fuel. Engineer the boat What kind of horsepower, torque, rpms and hours you need the work from there. The only engines that can handle that used oil is something like an old detroit diesel two stroke but filtering is essential. Also get old oil mix it 40/60 with real diesel and then run a scrubber to clean exhaust.

I choose different method. I am going to be using bio-diesel or regular diesel but will be able to produce my own biodiesel on board.

I would not use old oil in diesel it has too much junk it and not worth trouble getting or cleaning. You may save money on fuel but your going to spend it on repairs. Same for gas turbines or any with moving parts. A Stirling is not going to be powerful enough. May be a boiler to burn old oil driving steam turbine.... Sounds like new technology to me... Also those old two 500hp GM Cleveland Division 6-278A 6-cyl V6 diesel engines could probably burn oil better than most new engines can.

Skip the diesel electric. Take two 12-71 diesels with straight out shaft. *By the way, I have couple including tranny for a price if you want.
You wont loss 20 % of your power that way.
Also you can build scrubbers yourself. Actually your definitely have to make then yourself to make them fit around your boat. That is easy, not cheap, the Stainless is going to cost a small fortune. Just figure out how clean is clean enough for you...

 

He isnt using Diesels at all. You need to re-read the whole thread,

 

I think there is one thing about using old gear and motor oil that moust of you did not think about.

What is inside old used oil?

Particles from the engine like iron, aluminium witch are fine, but then you have lead witch is a toxic metal for marine life and other life for that mather and this will be in the exhaust.

And about having almoust zero emisions running propane or natural gas, you get about the same result on a good old diesel.

 

I can live with some by products that have to be disposed of if the engine is effective. Burning a waste product to end up with a smaller amount of waste product in a more concentrated form is of. Im not an enviromentalist. I would like to see the engine in operation.