How Led Me Amis Definition To Unvent The Wheel

So far, so good. Your logic stands on good ground. Let us see . . . .

I wrote that I realized that the airflow must be supported by a high pressure airflow excatly like a in gas turbine.

If you relate to this phrase, that your answer [I guess will be different.

The headline promised so much. I'd seen peoples' attempts to re-invent the wheel. So I was hoping to find out, this time, how to unvent the wheel - like maybe the wheel wouldn't exist any more. (Though, maybe it's as simple as covering the vents. It suffocates and dies.)

If you Google 'gas turbine with steam injection' you will find several articles on this subject related to a form of combined-cycle power generation. As noted in one article, the loss of the required high-purity water is one significant drawback.

There have been some developments along this route already. An example is the six-stroke engine. However, the combustion gases and the water/steam are not mixed in the combustion chamber; the engine works so as to achieve two power strokes per cycle by separating the fluids.

CO2 injection for oil recovery has been going on for about thirty years now in West Texas. The plant where I work (steam cycle electric) used to produce ducted stack gas as a source of heat and CO2 for one of the first CO2 plants in the area (the project was doomed since it was a tax write-off for a major airline (not named here), and when it started making a success, the idea was kaboshed.

To really blow your mind (so to speak), there has been a test supercritical CO2 (Brayton cycle).. but in these extreme limits hard to distinguich Rankine and Brayton cycles. The CO2 has such a high density in the lower temperature that the compressor looks more like a pump. The result is that less energy is used in compression, and voila, the cycle is extremely efficient, requires no water, recycles the internal gas without condensing, and can run off practically any suitable high temperature source.

Another cycle you might find of interest is the Maitsoenko cycle gas turbine where the exhaust makes steam that is injected into the compressed air stream right before entering the burner cans, and this can be quite efficient, but requires a great deal of water.

Also, I forgot about another idea, similar to a rocket engine: Inject liquid hydrogen (being vaporized in preheater) and liquid oxygen (also being vaporized in a separate preheater) directly into a combustion mixer nozzle block (made of God knows what to withstand the temperature, probably titanium with a tungsten cladding, with fuel and oxidant flowing over the outside surfaces in tubes that act as the preheater). Then inject pure water (to be condensed from the combustion products at the exhaust of the steam cycle. This would be the ultimate Rankine cycle for two reasons (1) all of the heat of combustion goes to top off the steam temperature, mass flow, and pressure. The water injection has to be done to attemperate the combustion gases because no standard steam turbine could withstand the initial temperature, and (2) by using an air-cooled (or even sub-cooled by VCC refrigeration) all of the combustion gases are recovered as water with pure water as by-product.

The electricity generated could be used for (1) standard uses, or (2) plasma drive on a large spacecraft, or (3) making a very large ray gun for vaporizing badguys.

The biggest issue between the two primary turbine designs is simply what fuel sources are they using to produce the heat energy that drives them.

Steam turbines use boilers that burn fuels that are typically solid in nature whereas a combustion type turbine uses fuels that are in gaseous or liquid forms.

Simply put trying to run a combustion type turbine on coal dust would be disastrous simply due to the highly abrasive nature of the solid fuel source itself.

Actually, the original "diesel" engine (Otto engine) was designed to run on powdered coal dust. The SCC Brayton cycle is designed to run off any heat source, including coal, diesel, kerosine, JP-5, gasoline, ethanol, methanol, solar, nuclear, or natural gas. The reason is that the burner cans are not burner cans, but basically resemble a boiler in that the SCC (supercritical carbon dioxide) is in tubes under high pressure, and the heat is in a "firebox" for lack of a better word. The burner (if on hydrocarbon or carbon fuel) can be optimized for best compromise between efficiency of combustion, temperature, and air emissions profile.

My first reaction to your question was, how do you contain the pressure, etc. but looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_turbine, I thought, (no not you are an idiot) but maybe you are reaching for something else, so at the risk of being defined as 'off topic' I would like to suggest you look at the gasification process, perhaps following, http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org which will lead you to a discussion on more efficient cooking stoves but... an important area of these cooking stoves is the injection of water or steam, - and thereby lies some important info, - but back to gasification, a process of producing gas from wood called, (no!) Wood Gas, which lit Paris and London before coal gas became plentifically (my spell check won't accept that word..) available and cheap, and which (gasification) offers Enormous possibilities, (my emphasis). This gasification process burns (wood, grass, coal, - anything really,) and has a classical origin, - one burns (eg. wood) in a low oxygen environment, then the unburnt gases are directed through a glowing charcoal bed, the which is starving, desperate, for oxygen, so cracks the tars, extracting the oxygen and freeing the hydrogen, also with the aromatic oils, also with the water, (main point) and also turns all the carbon dioxide and carbon into carbon monoxide, so delivering a flammable gas of (per eg) 80% Carbon monoxide and 20% hydrogen, - fully capable (if filtered) of running a conventional internal combustion motor etc. but pertinent to our discussion is the water injection, - as it is entering into a variety of exothermic and endothermic reactions, it would be better the hotter the water is, - better still if steam, (I call on our Chemical engineers to suggest what temperatures) as finally the temperature in the glowing carbon bed is going to determine what is possible. Possibly raising the temperature even higher will result in even more water turning into broken H2O, the oxygen being free to combine with the (hello) carbon, the hydrogen being free, - maybe pushing it all up to an almost plasma level could also be instructive (but I admit to skating on thin ice there), but whatever, hopefully you get my drift that looking more deeply into the injection of H2O into gasifiers may be fruitful, and maybe that is what you were feeling for, - if not, apologies. Cheers, Geoff.

You should look at the STIRLING ENGINE. It takes advantage of combustion in the simplest manner, it can utilyze about any kind of heat source, has little or no carbon foot print... After all, steam infers relatively complex & potentially dangerous mechanisms as well as requiring major sources of raw energy to make it all go. Good luck. Carlos Paraphrasing Hugh Walpole 'Life without courage is no life at all.'

One of the great misconceptions of Stirling engine technology is the so-called ready ability for scale-up to large-scale engines (with accordingly high power output). This is not true, and never has been.

Summarize of discussion about "inventing the wheSummarize of discussion about "inventing the wheel"

Dear friends-Thank you all the participants- I learned a lot from your answers and comments.

Now I want to explain once more the background of my idea to inject water into a combustion chamber, and create a hybrid gas steam turbine.

Since I have no formal education, but I was taught informal by some experts- I "knew" that a steam turbine is much more efficient than a gas turbine.

I verified that some of the big steam turbines are fed by mazut, but there are some steam turbine that are fueled by natural gas.

Because I'm aware that the thermal efficiency is dependent on high temperature of the steam, and I know that engineers are seeking ways to increase the steam temperature, therefore I thought about the water injection. B.t.w- few years ago I came up with the idea to inject water into a jet engine for vtol goal, but I was told that this idea is utilised in the pegazus jet!

Now back to the hybrid engine- The exhausted gases will be cooled for the water recovery, therefore I asked what can be done with the huge amount of Co2 and Nox emission?!

Since all the water that will be injected in the combustion chamber will be treated well, thereshould be no corrosion because of the water.

But probably may the super heated water vapor in presence of Co2 and Nox, result any corrosion?

Now let me ask a new question:

Do you think that it will be possible to apply water injection to a coal powder fueled steam turbine?And something off topic-In my original post the title was "How led me a misdefinition to invent the wheel"- but on this forum it appeared as you see.After I saw it, I checked my original post on the "OpenOffice" from where it was copied, but there it was OKAY, without any mistake!Did you experience something like that as well?

<...The exhausted gases will be cooled for the water recovery........Co2 and Nox emission?!.............>

Some of it will dissolve in the condensate, as indicated in #1 above, causing the same corrosion prevention issues to solve. The rest of it goes up the stack, just like before. It is most unwise to let the stack exit temperature fall below 135degC for any length of time, as this is the dewpoint of sulphuric acid.

<...Since all the water that will be injected in the combustion chamber will be treated well, thereshould be no corrosion because of the water....>

WALOOB - on becoming condensate with this new arrangement it will have dissolved CO_x, NO_x and SO_x in it!

<...But probably may the super heated water vapor in presence of Co2 and Nox, result any corrosion?...>

'Superheated'? It has just been condensed!

<.....possible to apply water injection to a coal powder fueled steam turbine?...>

Particulate erosion - grit - ash? Poor old turbine! Who in their right mind would fly a jet engine through a volcanic eruption? Michael O'Leary?

Thank you for your answers that except that you could understand that the water injection should evaporate the water, to very high temperature.

Once again thank you very much!

Why not advance to hydrogen, and break the hydrogen out of the steam? Starting with a pressurized container, with a relief, use the steam ,in a tube, to run a wheel similar to a bicycle generator lite to produce the power to seperate the H2O molecule. Hydrogen on demand to power the main boiler. No hazard because of being produced on demand. There you go. And, there are numerous fuels for the original container( gas, wood, propane, solar, wind, etc)

Well dear fellow- You are now at the place where I've been few years ago,as I had a great idea to use wind energy on the ocean, to produce electricity and seperate sea water to hydrogen.

I didn't realize that this process is very inefficient!

Hydrogen as a fuel (I think) would still very expensive as a fuel, hence only used in critical applications, such as large rockets. If you however, have a seawater process that makes hydrogen, and liberates CO2 (such as the US Navy has now) you can use this as feedstock to Fischer-Tropsch synthesis and make transportable hydrocarbon fuel. You might for example, simply store up the fuel and then run your gas turbine (combined cycle with steam being produced on the exhaust heat (in a heat recovery steam generator), etc., etc. The fuel thus produced is (1) very clean with no measurable sulfur content, and (2) low carbon footprint if you consider where the carbon comes from and whence it (eventually) will return. Or if "morally compelled" one could capture the carbon dioxide from the exhaust (since low stack temperatures are not really an issue when there is no measurable sulfur), and re-use this in the cycle. By the way, US Navy would only use the above process when nuclear energy is available to drive the process to make the hydrocarbons.