High Guard - Chemical Powerplants
- Thread starter Mithras
- Start date
Gasoline/Diesel/Petrol
Biodiesel
Alcohol.
Basicly, any liquid that will burn. Actual cars have operated on vegatable oil.
At low TLs, each engine will be designed for a specific local fuel, but at post-computer TLs, multi-fuel self adjusting engines should be possible.
Biodiesel
Alcohol.
Basicly, any liquid that will burn. Actual cars have operated on vegatable oil.
At low TLs, each engine will be designed for a specific local fuel, but at post-computer TLs, multi-fuel self adjusting engines should be possible.
lucasdigital
Banded Mongoose
Mithras said:
There's no other mention, they just use anything that can yield energy from chemical reactions. Fossil fuels or synthentics are just the two obvious branches that spring to mind because they've got pretty reasonable energy density and allow higher compression ratios. Hell, you could probably burn wood, but I'd expect you'd need a jolly big power plant..
The problem with these processes is that you'd need to carry oxygen as well as the fuel. I'd assume this is just counted into the size rules on p42...
GypsyComet
Emperor Mongoose
Mithras said:
Not necessarily. It's just easy to work with. The problem with an MHD turbine is that you need motion. In space, where you are lacking two things (a medium of some density that you move through, and a source of motion you don't have to pay for; aka air and gravity) you have to provide both, which takes as much power as you might get back out of it.
Mithras
Banded Mongoose
Its still a very unconvincing type of power-plant in my eyes. I'm trying to design near-future spacecraft operating in the solar system, fission reactors, batteries (fuel cells) fit right in, but this beast - I can't see anything like it on the drawing boards anywhere to give me an analog.
Mithras
Banded Mongoose
Actually, I've just found a link to two types of small nuclear reactor used by the US and USSR in orbit, very small and candidates for versions on my small craft. I'm confident I can dispense with the chemical pp and use only fuel cells and fission reactors ...
The Russian: http://www.astronautix.com/craft/usa.htm
And the American: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNAP-10A
The Russian: http://www.astronautix.com/craft/usa.htm
And the American: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNAP-10A
An example could perhaps be an advanced model of a Stirling engineMithras said:
used as a part of a Micro Combined Heat and Power System:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirling_engine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_combined_heat_and_power
While I doubt that this or something similar would really be a good idea
for a spaceship, it seems at least to be possible.
Mithras
Banded Mongoose
Bingo! Thanks rust, reading up on the Stirling engine led me to current submarine power plants that are non-battery and non-nuclear.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air-independent_propulsion#Closed_cycle_steam_turbines
Most interesting were: "The Swedish shipbuilder Kockums has constructed three Gotland class submarines for the Swedish Navy which are fitted with an auxiliary Stirling engine which uses liquid oxygen and diesel fuel to drive 75 kilowatt generators for either propulsion or charging batteries."
And: The French MESMA is available for the Agosta 90B and Scorpène class submarines. It is essentially a modified version of their nuclear propulsion system with heat being generated by ethanol and oxygen. A conventional steam turbine power plant powered by steam generated from the combustion of ethanol (grain alcohol) and stored oxygen at a pressure of 60 atmospheres. This pressure-firing allows exhaust carbon dioxide to be expelled overboard at any depth without an exhaust compressor.
In addition the German navy is building a fuel-cell powered submarine at the moment.
The submarine angle was a fruitful one, thanks rust!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air-independent_propulsion#Closed_cycle_steam_turbines
Most interesting were: "The Swedish shipbuilder Kockums has constructed three Gotland class submarines for the Swedish Navy which are fitted with an auxiliary Stirling engine which uses liquid oxygen and diesel fuel to drive 75 kilowatt generators for either propulsion or charging batteries."
And: The French MESMA is available for the Agosta 90B and Scorpène class submarines. It is essentially a modified version of their nuclear propulsion system with heat being generated by ethanol and oxygen. A conventional steam turbine power plant powered by steam generated from the combustion of ethanol (grain alcohol) and stored oxygen at a pressure of 60 atmospheres. This pressure-firing allows exhaust carbon dioxide to be expelled overboard at any depth without an exhaust compressor.
In addition the German navy is building a fuel-cell powered submarine at the moment.
The submarine angle was a fruitful one, thanks rust!
Power plants from fuel cells run on bio-fuels have been around for many decades (1950's-60's)... In actual use as power generation plants for civilian (niche commercial) as well as military applications!
Making them small enough for traveling soldiers has been an ongoing research direction for quite some time...
The biggest problem is actually heat - bio-fuel based fuel cells produce more energy/density than H + O systems (nature has stored more energy in the hydro-carbon chains)- but the cost to extract is high operating temps. While some of this heat energy can be recycled for more power the problem is reliable materials, safety and portability.
From a range/power available standpoint they can't compete with nuclear - but from a materials handling, safety, expertise, operating cost, and environmental approach they are a good fit for submarines and spacecraft. The tech to operate is actually lower, while the tech to create (practically) is higher.
Fuel is also more readily available at lower tech (than refined radioactives) and obviously safer and easier to handle (in general), acquire and, in a pinch, create.
On a starship, for the power - nuclear, even with shielding is likely to consume less space and will definitely consume less space for fuel.
Making them small enough for traveling soldiers has been an ongoing research direction for quite some time...
The biggest problem is actually heat - bio-fuel based fuel cells produce more energy/density than H + O systems (nature has stored more energy in the hydro-carbon chains)- but the cost to extract is high operating temps. While some of this heat energy can be recycled for more power the problem is reliable materials, safety and portability.
From a range/power available standpoint they can't compete with nuclear - but from a materials handling, safety, expertise, operating cost, and environmental approach they are a good fit for submarines and spacecraft. The tech to operate is actually lower, while the tech to create (practically) is higher.
Fuel is also more readily available at lower tech (than refined radioactives) and obviously safer and easier to handle (in general), acquire and, in a pinch, create.
On a starship, for the power - nuclear, even with shielding is likely to consume less space and will definitely consume less space for fuel.
