Tag Archives: energy

yet another quantum joke

Why do you get more energy from a steak than from the same amount of hamburger?

 

Hamburger is steak in the ground state.

 

Is funny because….. it’s a pun on the word ground. Hamburger is ground-up meat, of course, but the reference to a ground state also relates to a basic discovery of quantum mechanics (QM): that all things exist in quantized energy states. The lowest of these is called the ground state, and you get less energy out of a process if you start with things at this ground state. Lasers, as an example, get their energy by electrons being made to drop to their ground state at the same time; you can’t get any energy from a laser if the electrons start in the ground state.

The total energy of a thing can be thought of as having a kinetic and a potential energy part. The potential energy is usually higher the more an item moves from its ideal (lowest potential point). The kinetic energies of though tends to get lower when more space is available because, from Heisenberg uncertainty, ∆l•∆v=h. That is, the more space there is, the less uncertainty of speed, and thus the less kinetic energy other things being equal. The ground energy state is the lowest sum of potential and kinetic energy, and thus all things occupy a cloud of some size, even at the ground state. Without this size, the world would cease to exist. Atoms would radiate energy, and shrink until they vanished.

In grad school, I got into understanding thermodynamics, transport phenomena, and quantum mechanics, particularly involving hydrogen. This lead to my hydrogen production and purification inventions, what my company sells.

Click here for a quantum cartoon on waves and particles, an old Heisenberg joke, or a joke about how many quantum mechanicians it takes to change a lightbulb.

R. E. Buxbaum, July 16, 2013. I once claimed that the unseen process that maintains existence could be called God; this did not go well with the religious.

 

What’s the quality of your home insulation

5 Replies

By Dr. Robert E. Buxbaum, June 3, 2013

It’s common to have companies call during dinner offering to blow extra insulation into the walls and attic of your home. Those who’ve added this insulation find a small decrease in their heating and cooling bills, but generally wonder if they got their money’s worth, or perhaps if they need yet-more insulation to get the full benefit. Here’s a simple approach to comparing your home heat bill to the ideal your home can reasonably reach.

The rate of heat transfer through a wall, Qw, is proportional to the temperature difference, ∆T, to the area, A, and to the average thermal conductivity of the wall, k; it is inversely proportional to the wall thickness, ∂;

Qw = ∆T A k /∂.

For home insulation, we re-write this as Qw = ∆T A/Rw where Rw is the thermal resistance of the wall, measured (in the US) as °F/BTU/hr-ft2. Rw = ∂/k.

Lets assume that your home’s outer wall thickness is nominally 6″ thick (0.5 foot). With the best available insulation, perfectly applied, the heat loss will be somewhat higher than if the space was filled with still air, k=.024 BTU/ft. hr°F, a result based on molecular dynamics. For a 6″ wall, the R value, will always be less than .5/.024 = 20.8 °F/BTU/hr-ft2.. It will be much less if there are holes or air infiltration, but for practical construction with joists and sills, an Rw value of 15 or 16 is probably about as good as you’ll get with 6″ walls.

To show you how to evaluate your home, I’ll now calculate the R value of my walls based on the size of my ranch-style home (in Michigan) and our heat bills. I’ll first do this in a simplified calculation, ignoring windows, and will then repeat the calculation including the windows. Windows are found to be very important. I strongly suggest window curtains to save heat and air conditioning,

The outer wall of my home is 190 feet long, and extends about 11 feet above ground to the roof. Multiplying these dimensions gives an outer wall area of 2090 ft2. I could now add the roof area, 1750 ft2 (it’s the same as the area of the house), but since the roof is more heavily insulated than the walls, I’ll estimate that it behaves like 1410 ft2 of normal wall. I calculate there are 3500 ft2 of effective above-ground area for heat loss. This is the area that companies keep offering to insulate.

Between December 2011 and February 2012, our home was about 72°F inside, and the outside temperature was about 28°F. Thus, the average temperature difference between the inside and outside was about 45°F; I estimate the rate of heat loss from the above-ground part of my house, Qu = 3500 * 45/R = 157,500/Rw.

Our house has a basement too, something that no one has yet offered to insulate. While the below-ground temperature gradient is smaller, it’s less-well insulated. Our basement walls are cinderblock covered with 2″ of styrofoam plus wall-board. Our basement floor is even less well insulated: it’s just cement poured on pea-gravel. I estimate the below-ground R value is no more than 1/2 of whatever the above ground value is; thus, for calculating QB, I’ll assume a resistance of Rw/2.

The below-ground area equals the square footage of our house, 1750 ft2 but the walls extend down only about 5 feet below ground. The basement walls are thus 950 ft2 in area (5 x 190 = 950). Adding the 1750 ft2 floor area, we find a total below-ground area of 2700 ft2.

The temperature difference between the basement and the wet dirt is only about 25°F in the winter. Assuming the thermal resistance is Rw/2, I estimate the rate of heat loss from the basement, QB = 2700*25*(2/Rw) = 135,000/Rw. It appears that nearly as much heat leaves through the basement as above ground!

Between December and February 2012, our home used an average of 597 cubic feet of gas per day or 25497 BTU/hour (heat value = 1025 BTU/ ft3). QU+ QB = 292,500/Rw. Ignoring windows, I estimate Rw of my home = 292,500/25497 = 11.47.

We now add the windows. Our house has 230 ft2 of windows, most covered by curtains and/or plastic. Because of the curtains and plastic, they would have an R value of 3 except that black-body radiation tends to be very significant. I estimate our windows have an R value of 1.5; the heat loss through the windows is thus QW= 230*45/1.5 = 6900 BTU/hr, about 27% of the total. The R value for our walls is now re-estimated to be 292,500/(25497-6900) = 15.7; this is about as good as I can expect given the fixed thickness of our walls and the fact that I can not easily get an insulation conductivity lower than still air. I thus find that there will be little or no benefit to adding more above-ground wall insulation to my house.

To save heat energy, I might want to coat our windows in partially reflective plastic or draw the curtains to follow the sun. Also, since nearly half the heat left from the basement, I may want to lay a thicker carpet, or lay a reflective under-layer (a space blanket) beneath the carpet.

To improve on the above estimate, I could consider our furnace efficiency; it is perhaps only 85-90% efficient, with still-warm air leaving up the chimney. There is also some heat lost through the door being opened, and through hot water being poured down the drain. As a first guess, these heat losses are balanced by the heat added by electric usage, by the body-heat of people in the house, and by solar radiation that entered through the windows (not much for Michigan in winter). I still see no reason to add more above-ground insulation. Now that I’ve analyzed my home, it’s time for you to analyze yours.

My steam-operated, high pressure pump

3 Replies

Here’s a miniature version of a duplex pump that we made 2-3 years ago at REB Research as a way to pump fuel into hydrogen generators for use with fuel cells. The design is from the 1800s. It was used on tank locomotives and steamboats to pump water into the boiler using only the pressure in the boiler itself. This seems like magic, but isn’t. There is no rotation, but linear motion in a steam piston of larger diameter pushes a liquid pump piston with a smaller diameter. Each piston travels the same distance, but there is more volume in the steam cylinder. The work from the steam piston is greater: W = ∫PdV; energy is conserved, and the liquid is pumped to higher pressure than the driving steam (neat!).

The following is a still photo. Click on the YouTube link to see the steam pump in action. It has over 4000 views!

Mini duplex pump. Provides high pressure water from steam power. Amini version of a classic of the 1800s Coffee cup and pen shown for scale.

Mini duplex pump. Provides high pressure water from steam power. A mini version of a classic of the 1800s Coffee cup and pen shown for scale.

You can get the bronze casting and the plans for this pump from Stanley co (England). Any talented machinist should be able to do the rest. I hired an Amish craftsman in Ohio. Maurice Perlman did the final fit work in our shop.

Our standard line of hydrogen generators still use electricity to pump the methanol-water. Even our latest generators are meant for nom-mobile applications where electricity is awfully convenient and cheap. This pump was intended for a future customer who would need to generate hydrogen to make electricity for remote and mobile applications. Even our non-mobile hydrogen is a better way to power cars than batteries, but making it mobile has advantages. Another advance would be to heat the reactors by burning the waste gas (I’ve been working on that too, and have filed a patent). Sometimes you have to build things ahead of finding a customer — and this pump was awfully cool.

Camless valves and the Fiat-500

8 Replies

One of my favorite automobile engine ideas is the use of camless, electronic valves. It’s an idea whose advantages have been known for 100 years or more, and it’s finally going to be used on a mainstream, commercial car — on this year’s Fiat 500s. Fiat is not going entirely camless, but the plan is to replace the cams on the air intake valves with solenoids. A normal car engine uses cams and lifters to operate the poppet valves used to control the air intake and exhaust. Replacing these cams and lifters saves some weight, and allows the Fiat-500 to operate more efficiently at low power by allowing the engine to use less combustion energy to suck vacuum. The Fiat 500 semi-camless technology is called Multiair: it’s licensed from Valeo (France), and appeared as an option on the 2010 Alfa Romeo.

How this saves mpg is as follows: at low power (idling etc.), the air intake of a normal car engine is restricted creating a fairly high vacuum. The vacuum restriction requires energy to draw and reduces the efficiency of the engine by decreasing the effective compression ratio. It’s needed to insure that the car does not produce too much NOx when idling. In a previous post, I showed that the rate of energy wasted by drawing this vacuum was the vacuum pressure times the engine volume and the rpm rate; I also mentioned some classic ways to reduce this loss (exhaust recycle and adding water).

Valeo’s/Fiat’s semi-camless design does nothing to increase the effective compression ratio at low power, but it reduces the amount of power lost to vacuum by allowing the intake air pressure to be higher, even at low power demand. A computer reduces the amount of air entering the engine by reducing the amount of time that the intake valve is open. The higher air pressure means there is less vacuum penalty, both when the valve is open even when the valve is closed. On the Alfa Romeo, the 1.4 liter Multiair engine option got 8% better gas mileage (39 mpg vs 36 mpg) and 10% more power (168 hp vs 153 hp) than the 1.4 liter cam-driven engine.

David Bowes shows off his latest camless engines at NAMES, April 2013.

David Bowes shows off his latest camless engines at NAMES, April 2013.

Fiat used a similar technology in the 1970s with variable valve timing (VVT), but that involved heavy cams and levers, and proved to be unreliable. In the US, some fine engineers had been working on solenoids, e.g. David Bowes, pictured above with one of his solenoidal engines (he’s a sometime manufacturer for REB Research). Dave has built engines with many cycles that would be impractical without solenoids, and has done particularly nice work reducing the electric use of the solenoid.

Durability may be a problem here too, as there is no other obvious reason that Fiat has not gone completely camless, and has not put a solenoid-controlled valve on the exhaust too. One likely reason Fiat didn’t do this is that solenoidal valves tend to be unreliable at the higher temperatures found in exhaust. If so, perhaps they are unreliable on the intake too. A car operated at 1000-4000 rpm will see on the order of 100,000,000 cycles in 25,000 miles. No solenoid we’ve used has lasted that many cycles, even at low temperatures, but most customers expect their cars to go more than 25,000 miles without needing major engine service.

We use solenoidal pumps in our hydrogen generators too, but increase the operating live by operating the solenoid at only 50 cycles/minute — maximum, rather than 1000- 4000. This should allow our products to work for 10 years at least without needing major service. Performance car customers may be willing to stand for more-frequent service, but the company can’t expect ordinary customers to go back to the days where Fiat stood for “Fix It Again Tony.”

Nuclear Power: the elephant of clean energy

9 Replies

As someone who heads a hydrogen energy company, REB Research, I regularly have to tip toe about nuclear power, a rather large elephant among the clean energy options. While hydrogen energy looks better than battery energy in terms of cost and energy density, neither are really energy sources; they are ways to transport energy or store it. Among non-fossil sources (sources where you don’t pollute the air massively) there is solar and wind: basically non-reliable, low density, high cost and quite polluting when you include the damage done making the devices.

Compared to these, I’m happy to report that the methanol used to make hydrogen in our membrane reactors can come from trees (anti-polluting), even tree farming isn’t all that energy dense. And then there’s uranium: plentiful, cheap and incredibly energy dense. I try to ignore how energy dense uranium is, but the cartoon below shows how hard that is to do sometimes. Nuclear power is reliable too, and energy dense; a small plant will produce between 500 and 1000 MW of power; your home uses perhaps 2 kW. You need logarithmic graph paper just to compare nuclear power to most anything else (including hydrogen):

log_scale

A tiny amount of uranium-oxide, the size of a pencil will provide as much power as hundreds of train cars full of coal. After transportation, the coal sells for about $80/ton; the sells for about $25/lb: far cheaper than the train loads of coal (there are 100-110 tons of coal to a train-car load). What’s more, while essentially all of the coal in a train car ends up in the air after it’s burnt, the waste uranium generally does not go into the air we breathe. The coal fumes are toxic, containing carcinogens, carbon monoxide, mercury, vanadium and arsenic; they are often radioactive too. All this is avoided with nuclear power unless there is a bad accident, and bad accidents are far rarer with nuclear power than, for example, with natural gas. Since Germany started shutting nuclear plants and replacing them with coal, it appears they are making all of Europe sicker).

It is true that the cost to build a nuclear plant is higher than to build a coal or gas plant, but it does not have to be: it wasn’t that way in the early days of nuclear power, nor is this true of military reactors that power our (USA) submarines and major warships. Commercial nuclear reactors cost a lot largely because of the time-cost for neighborhood approval (and they don’t always get approval). Batteries used for battery power get no safety review generally though there were two battery explosions on the Dreamliner alone, and natural gas has been known to level towns. Nuclear reactors can blow up too, as Chernobyl showed (and to a lesser extent Fukushima), but almost any design is better than Chernobyl.

The biggest worry people have with nuclear, and the biggest objection it seems to me, is escaped radiation. In a future post, I plan to go into the reality of the risk in more detail, but the worry is far worse than the reality, or far worse than the reality of other dangers (we all die of something eventually). The predicted death rate from the three-mile island accident is basically nil; Fukushima has provided little health damage (not that it’s a big comfort). Further, bizarre as this seems the thyroid cancer rate in Belarus in the wind-path of the Chernobyl plant is actually slightly lower than in the US (7 per 100,000 in Belarus compared to over 9 per 100,000 in the USA). This is clearly a statistical fluke; it’s caused, I believe, by the tendency for Russians to die of other things before they can get thyroid cancer, but it suggests that the health risks of even the worst nuclear accidents are not as bad as you might think. (BTW, Our company makes hydrogen extractors that make accidents less likely)

The biggest real radiation worry (in my opinion) is where to put the waste. Ever since President Carter closed off the option of reprocessing used fuel for re-use there has been no way to permanently get rid of waste. Further, ever since President Obama closed the Yucca Mountain burial repository there have been no satisfactory place to put the radioactive waste. Having waste sitting around above ground all over the US is a really bad option because the stuff is quite toxic. Just as the energy content of nuclear fuel is higher than most fuels, the energy content of the waste is higher. Burying it deep below a mountain in an area were no-one is likely to live seems like a good solution: sort of like putting the uranium back where it came from. And reprocessing for re-use seems like an even better solution since this gets rid of the waste permanently.

I should mention that nuclear power-derived electricity is a wonderful way to generate electricity or hydrogen for clean transportation. Further, the heat of hot springs comes from nuclear power. The healing waters that people flock to for their health is laced with isotopes (and it’s still healthy). For now, though I’ll stay in the hydrogen generator business and will ignore the clean elephant in the room. Fortunately there’s hardly any elephant poop, only lots and lots of coal and solar poop.

 

Hydrogen versus Battery Power

21 Replies

There are two major green energy choices that people are considering to power small-to-medium size, mobile applications like cars and next generation, drone airplanes: rechargeable, lithium-ion batteries and hydrogen /fuel cells. Neither choice is an energy source as such, but rather a clean energy carrier. That is, batteries and fuel cells are ways to store and concentrate energy from other sources, like solar or nuclear plants for use on the mobile platform.

Of these two, rechargeable batteries are the more familiar: they are used in computers, cell phones, automobiles, and the ill-fated, Boeing Dreamliner. Fuel cells are less familiar but not totally new: they are used to power most submarines and spy-planes, and find public use in the occasional, ‘educational’ toy. Fuel cells provided electricity for the last 30 years of space missions, and continue to power the international space station when the station is in the dark of night (about half the time). Batteries have low energy density (energy per mass or volume) but charging them is cheap and easy. Home electricity costs about 12¢/kWhr and is available in every home and shop. A cheap transformer and rectifier is all you needed to turn the alternating current electricity into DC to recharge a battery virtually anywhere. If not for the cost and weight of the batteries, the time to charge the battery (usually and hour or two), batteries would be the obvious option.

Two obvious problems with batteries are the low speed of charge and the annoyance of having to change the battery every 500 charges or so. If one runs an EV battery 3/4 of the way down and charges it every week, the battery will last 8 years. Further, battery charging takes 1-2 hours. These numbers are acceptable if you use the car only occasionally, but they get more annoying the more you use the car. By contrast, the tanks used to hold gasoline or hydrogen fill in a matter of minutes and last for decades or many thousands of fill-cycles.

Another problem with batteries is range. The weight-energy density of batteries is about 1/20 that of gasoline and about 1/10 that of hydrogen, and this affects range. While gasoline stores about 2.5 kWhr/kg including the weight of the gas tank, current Li-Ion batteries store far less than this, about 0.15 kWhr/kg. The energy density of hydrogen gas is nearly that of gasoline when the efficiency effect is included. A 100 kg of hydrogen tank at 10,000 psi will hold 8 kg of hydrogen, or enough to travel about 350 miles in a fuel-cell car. This is about as far as a gasoline car goes carrying 60 kg of tank + gasoline. This seems acceptable for long range and short-range travel, while the travel range with eVs is more limited, and will likely remain that way, see below.

The volumetric energy density of compressed hydrogen/ fuel cell systems is higher than for any battery scenario. And hydrogen tanks are far cheaper than batteries. From Battery University. http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/will_the_fuel_cell_have_a_second_life

The volumetric energy density of compressed hydrogen/ fuel cell systems is higher than for any battery scenario. And hydrogen tanks are far cheaper than batteries. From Battery University. http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/will_the_fuel_cell_have_a_second_life

Cost is perhaps the least understood problem with batteries. While electricity is cheap (cheaper than gasoline) battery power is expensive because of the high cost and limited life of batteries. Lithium-Ion batteries cost about $2000/kWhr, and give an effective 500 charge/discharge cycles; their physical life can be extended by not fully charging them, but it’s the same 500 cycles. The effective cost of the battery is thus $4/kWhr (The battery university site calculates $24/kWhr, but that seems overly pessimistic). Combined with the cost of electricity, and the losses in charging, the net cost of Li-Ion battery power is about $4.18/kWhr, several times the price of gasoline, even including the low efficiency of gasoline engines.

Hydrogen prices are much lower than battery prices, and nearly as low as gasoline, when you add in the effect of the high efficiency fuel cell engine. Hydrogen can be made on-site and compressed to 10,000 psi for less cost than gasoline, and certainly less cost than battery power. If one makes hydrogen by electrolysis of water, the cost is approximately 24¢/kWhr including the cost of the electrolysis unit.While the hydrogen tank is more expensive than a gasoline tank, it is much cheaper than a battery because the technology is simpler. Fuel cells are expensive though, and only about 50% efficient. As a result, the as-used cost of electrolysis hydrogen in a fuel cell car is about 48¢/kWhr. That’s far cheaper than battery power, but still not cheap enough to encourage the sale of FC vehicles with the current technology.

My company, REB Research provides another option for hydrogen generation: The use of a membrane reactor to make it from cheap, easy to transport liquids like methanol. Our technology can be used to make hydrogen either at the station or on-board the car. The cost of hydrogen made this way is far cheaper than from electrolysis because most of the energy comes from the methanol, and this energy is cheaper than electricity.

In our membrane reactors methanol-water (65-75% Methanol), is compressed to 350 psi, heated to 350°C, and reacted to produce hydrogen that is purified as it is made. CH3OH + H2O –> 3H2 + CO2, with the hydrogen extracted through a membrane within the reactor.

The hydrogen can be compressed to 10,000 psi and stored in a tank on board an automobile or airplane, or one can choose to run this process on-board the vehicle and generate it from liquid fuel as-needed. On-board generation provides a saving of weight, cost, and safety since you can carry methanol-water easily in a cheap tank at low pressure. The energy density of methanol-water is about 1/2 that of gasoline, but the fuel cell is about twice as efficient as a gasoline engine making the overall volumetric energy density about the same. Not including the fuel cell, the cost of energy made this way is somewhat lower than the cost of gasoline, about 25¢/kWhr; since methanol is cheaper than gasoline on a per-energy basis. Methanol is made from natural gas, coal, or trees — non-imported, low cost sources. And, best yet, trees are renewable.

Heat conduction in insulating blankets, aerogels, space shuttle tiles, etc.

4 Replies

A lot about heat conduction in insulating blankets can be explained by the ordinary motion of gas molecules. That’s because the thermal conductivity of air (or any likely gas) is much lower than that of glass, alumina, or any likely solid material used for the structure of the blanket. At any temperature, the average kinetic energy of an air molecule is 1/2kT in any direction, or 3/2kT altogether; where k is Boltzman’s constant, and T is absolute temperature, °K. Since kinetic energy equals 1/2 mv2, you find that the average velocity in the x direction must be v = √kT/m = √RT/M. Here m is the mass of the gas molecule in kg, M is the molecular weight also in kg (0.029 kg/mol for air), R is the gas constant 8.29J/mol°C, and v is the molecular velocity in the x direction, in meters/sec. From this equation, you will find that v is quite large under normal circumstances, about 290 m/s (650 mph) for air molecules at ordinary temperatures of 22°C or 295 K. That is, air molecules travel in any fixed direction at roughly the speed of sound, Mach 1 (the average speed including all directions is about √3 as fast, or about 1130 mph).

The distance a molecule will go before hitting another one is a function of the cross-sectional areas of the molecules and their densities in space. Dividing the volume of a mol of gas, 0.0224 m3/mol at “normal conditions” by the number of molecules in the mol (6.02 x10^23) gives an effective volume per molecule at this normal condition: .0224 m3/6.0210^23 = 3.72 x10^-26 m3/molecule at normal temperatures and pressures. Dividing this volume by the molecular cross-section area for collisions (about 1.6 x 10^-19 m2 for air based on an effective diameter of 4.5 Angstroms) gives a free-motion distance of about 0.23×10^-6 m or 0.23µ for air molecules at standard conditions. This distance is small, to be sure, but it is 1000 times the molecular diameter, more or less, and as a result air behaves nearly as an “ideal gas”, one composed of point masses under normal conditions (and most conditions you run into). The distance the molecule travels to or from a given surface will be smaller, 1/√3 of this on average, or about 1.35×10^-7m. This distance will be important when we come to estimate heat transfer rates at the end of this post.

 

Molecular motion of an air molecule (oxygen or nitrogen) as part of heat transfer process; this shows how some of the dimensions work.

Molecular motion of an air molecule (oxygen or nitrogen) as part of heat transfer process; this shows how some of the dimensions work.

The number of molecules hitting per square meter per second is most easily calculated from the transfer of momentum. The pressure at the surface equals the rate of change of momentum of the molecules bouncing off. At atmospheric pressure 103,000 Pa = 103,000 Newtons/m2, the number of molecules bouncing off per second is half this pressure divided by the mass of each molecule times the velocity in the surface direction. The contact rate is thus found to be (1/2) x 103,000 Pa x 6.02^23 molecule/mol /(290 m/s. x .029 kg/mol) = 36,900 x 10^23 molecules/m2sec.

The thermal conductivity is merely this number times the heat capacity transfer per molecule times the distance of the transfer. I will now calculate the heat capacity per molecule from statistical mechanics because I’m used to doing things this way; other people might look up the heat capacity per mol and divide by 6.02 x10^23: For any gas, the heat capacity that derives from kinetic energy is k/2 per molecule in each direction, as mentioned above. Combining the three directions, that’s 3k/2. Air molecules look like dumbbells, though, so they have two rotations that contribute another k/2 of heat capacity each, and they have a vibration that contributes k. We begin with an approximate value for k = 2 cal/mol of molecules per °C; it’s actually 1.987 but I round up to include some electronic effects. Based on this, we calculate the heat capacity of air to be 7 cal/mol°C at constant volume or 1.16 x10^-23 cal/molecule°C. The amount of energy that can transfer to the hot (or cold) wall is this heat capacity times the temperature difference that molecules carry between the wall and their first collision with other gases. The temperature difference carried by air molecules at standard conditions is only 1.35 x10-7 times the temperature difference per meter because the molecules only go that far before colliding with another molecule (remember, I said this number would be important). The thermal conductivity for stagnant air per meter is thus calculated by multiplying the number of molecules times that hit per m2 per second, the distance the molecule travels in meters, and the effective heat capacity per molecule. This would be 36,900 x 10^23  molecules/m2sec x 1.35 x10-7m x 1.16 x10^-23 cal/molecule°C = 0.00578 cal/ms°C or .0241 W/m°C. This value is (pretty exactly) the thermal conductivity of dry air that you find by experiment.

I did all that math, though I already knew the thermal conductivity of air from experiment for a few reasons: to show off the sort of stuff you can do with simple statistical mechanics; to build up skills in case I ever need to know the thermal conductivity of deuterium or iodine gas, or mixtures; and finally, to be able to understand the effects of pressure, temperature and (mainly insulator) geometry — something I might need to design a piece of equipment with, for example, lower thermal heat losses. I find, from my calculation that we should not expect much change in thermal conductivity with gas pressure at near normal conditions; to first order, changes in pressure will change the distance the molecule travels to exactly the same extent that it changes the number of molecules that hit the surface per second. At very low pressures or very small distances, lower pressures will translate to lower conductivity, but for normal-ish pressures and geometries, changes in gas pressure should not affect thermal conductivity — and does not.

I’d predict that temperature would have a larger effect on thermal conductivity, but still not an order-of magnitude large effect. Increasing the temperature increases the distance between collisions in proportion to the absolute temperature, but decreases the number of collisions by the square-root of T since the molecules move faster at high temperature. As a result, increasing T has a √T positive effect on thermal conductivity.

Because neither temperature nor pressure has much effect, you might expect that the thermal conductivity of all air-filed insulating blankets at all normal-ish conditions is more-or-less that of standing air (air without circulation). That is what you find, for the most part; the same 0.024 W/m°C thermal conductivity with standing air, with high-tech, NASA fiber blankets on the space shuttle and with the cheapest styrofoam cups. Wool felt has a thermal conductivity of 0.042 W/m°C, about twice that of air, a not-surprising result given that wool felt is about 1/2 wool and 1/2 air.

Now we can start to understand the most recent class of insulating blankets, those with very fine fibers, or thin layers of fiber (or aluminum or gold). When these are separated by less than 0.2µ you finally decrease the thermal conductivity at room temperature below that for air. These layers decrease the distance traveled between gas collisions, but still leave the same number of collisions with the hot or cold wall; as a result, the smaller the gap below .2µ the lower the thermal conductivity. This happens in aerogels and some space blankets that have very small silica fibers, less than .1µ apart (<100 nm). Aerogels can have much lower thermal conductivities than 0.024 W/m°C, even when filled with air at standard conditions.

In outer space you get lower thermal conductivity without high-tech aerogels because the free path is very long. At these pressures virtually every molecule hits a fiber before it hits another molecule; for even a rough blanket with distant fibers, the fibers bleak up the path of the molecules significantly. Thus, the fibers of the space shuttle (about 10 µ apart) provide far lower thermal conductivity in outer space than on earth. You can get the same benefit in the lab if you put a high vacuum of say 10^-7 atm between glass walls that are 9 mm apart. Without the walls, the air molecules could travel 1.3 µ/10^-7 = 13m before colliding with each other. Since the walls of a typical Dewar are about 0.009 m apart (9 mm) the heat conduction of the Dewar is thus 1/150 (0.7%) as high as for a normal air layer 9mm thick; there is no thermal conductivity of Dewar flasks and vacuum bottles as such, since the amount of heat conducted is independent of gap-distance. Pretty spiffy. I use this knowledge to help with the thermal insulation of some of our hydrogen generators and hydrogen purifiers.

There is another effect that I should mention: black body heat transfer. In many cases black body radiation dominates: it is the reason the tiles are white (or black) and not clear; it is the reason Dewar flasks are mirrored (a mirrored surface provides less black body heat transfer). This post is already too long to do black body radiation justice here, but treat it in more detail in another post.

RE. Buxbaum

Small hydrogen generators for cooling dynamo generators

2 Replies

A majority of the electricity used in the US comes from rotating dynamos. Power is provided to the dynamos by a turbine or IC engine and the dynamo turns this power into electricity by moving a rotating coil (a rotor) through a non-rotating magnetic field provided by magnets or a non-rotating coil (a stator). While it is easy to cool the magnets or stator, cooling the rotor is challenging as there is no possibility to connect it cooling water or heat transfer paste. One of the more common options is hydrogen gas.

It is common to fill the space between the rotor and the stator with hydrogen gas. Heat transfers from the rotor to the stator or to the walls of the dynamo through the circulating hydrogen. Hydrogen has the lowest density of any gas, and the highest thermal conductivity of any gas. The low density is important because it reduces the power drag (wind drag) on the rotor. The high heat transfer coefficient helps cool the rotor so that it does not burn out at high power draw.

Hydrogen is typically provided to the dynamo by a small hydrogen generator or hydrogen bottle. While we have never sold a hydrogen generator to this market, I strongly believe that our membrane reactor hydrogen generators would be competitive; the cost of hydrogen is lower than that of bottled gas; it is far more convenient and safe; and the hydrogen is purer than from electrolysis.

The joy of curtains

6 Replies

By Dr. Robert E. Buxbaum January 18, 2013

In our northern climates most homes have double-paned windows; they cost a fortune, and are a lot better than plain glass, but they still lose a lot of heat: far more than the equivalent area of wall. The insulation value is poor mostly because the thickness is low: a typical double pane window is only ½” thick. The glass panes have hardly any insulation value, so the majority of the insulation is the 0.3″ air space between them. Our outer walls, by contrast, are typically 6” thick filled with glass –wool. The wall is 12 times as thick as the window, and it turns out that the R value is about 12 times as great. Since window area is about 1/10 the wall area, we can expect that about half your homes heat goes out through the windows (about half the air-conditioner cooling in the summer too). A good trick to improve your home’s insulation, then, is to add curtains as this provides a fairly thick layer of stagnant air inside the room, right next to your windows.

To see how much you can save by adding curtains, it’s nice (for me, and my mind-set mostly) to talk in terms of R values. In the northern USA, the “R” value of a typical, well-insulated outer wall is about 24. What that means is that it takes 24°F and one square foot of wall to remove 1 BTU per hour. That is, the resistance to heat loss is 24 °F.hr.ft2/BTU. The R value for a typical double pane window is about 2 in the same units, and is only 1 if you have single panes. The insulating quality of our windows is so poor that, for many homes, more heat is lost through the windows than through the rest of the wall space.

To figure out how much heat is lost through your windows take the area in square feet multiply by a typical temperature differential (50°F might be typical in Michigan), and divide by the R value of your paned windows (1 or 2) depending on whether it’s single or double paned. Since heat costs about $10/MMBTU ($10 per million BTU) for a gas heated house, you can figure out what a small, 10 ft2 window costs a typical Michigan householder as follows, assuming a single pane (R=1):

Q = Area* ∆T/R = 10 ft2 * 50°F/1 = 500 BTU/hr. Here Q is the heat lost per unit time, ∆T is the temperature difference between the window surface and the room, and A is the ara of the window surface.

Since there are 24 hours in a day, and 30.5 days in a month the dollar cost of that window is 500*24*31.5*10/1,000,000 = $3.78/month. After a few years, you’ll have paid $200 for that small window in lost heat and another $200 in air conditioning.

A cheap solution is to add curtains, shades, or plastic of some sort. These should not be placed too close to the window, or you won’t have a decent air gap, nor so far that the air will not be static in the gap. For small gaps between the window glass and your plastic or curtain, the heat transfer rate is proportional to the thermal conductivity of air, k, and inversely proportional to the air gap distance, ∂.

Q = ∆T A k /∂.

R  = ∂/k.

The thermal conductivity of air, k, is about .024 BTU/ft. hr°F. We thus confirm that the the R-value for an air gap of 9/16” or 1/20 foot is about 2 in these units. Though the typical air gap between the glass is less, about .3″ there is some more stagnant air outside the glass an that counts towards the 9/16″ of stagnant air. The k value of glass or plastic is much higher than of air, so the layers of glass or plastic add almost nothing to the total heat transfer resistance.

Because the R value of glass and plastic is so low, if you cover your window with a layer of plastic sheet that touches the window, the insulation effect is basically zero. To get insulation value you want to use a gap between about ½” and 1” in thickness. If you already have a 2 paned window of R value 2, you can expect to be able to raise your insulation value to 4 by adding a plastic sheet or single curtain at 9/16” from the glass.

Sorry to say, you can’t raise this insulation value much higher than 4 by use of a single air gap that’s more than 1″ thick. When a single gap exceeds this size, the insulating value drops dramatically as gas circulation in the gap (free convection) drives heat transfer. That’s why wall insulation has fiber-glass fill. For your home, you will want something more attractive than fiberglass between you and the window pane, and typical approaches  include cellular blinds or double layer drapes. These work on the same principle as the single sheet, but have extra layers that stop convection.

My favorite version of the double drapes is the federalist version, where the inner drape is near transparent, shim cloth hangs close to the window, with a heavier drape beyond that. The heavier curtain is closed at night and opened in daytime; where insulation is needed, the lighter cloth hangs day and night. This looks a lot better than a roll-type window shade, or bamboo screen. Besides, with a roll-shade or bamboo, you must put it close to the window where it will interfere with the convection flow, that is cold shedding from the shut window.

Another nice alternative is a “cell shade” These are folded lengths of two or more stiff cloths that are formed into honeycombs ½” to 2” apart. This empty thickness provides the insulating power of the shade. Placed at the right distance from the window, the cell shade will add 3 or more to the overall R value of the window (1/12 ft / .024 BTU/ft. hr°F = 3.5 ft2hr°F/BTU). As with a bamboo screen, all this R value goes away if the shade is set at more than about 1” from the window or an interior shade. At a greater thickness that this, the free convection flow of cold air between the window and the shade dominates, and you get a puddle of cold air on the floor. 

I would suggest a cellular shade that opens from the bottom only and is translucent. This provides light and privacy; a shade that is too dark will be left open. Behind this, my home has double-pane windows (when I was single the window was covered by a layer of plastic too). The see-through shade provides insulation while allowing one to see out the window (or let light in) when the shade is drawn. You want to be able to see out; that’s the reason you had a window in the first place. Very thick, insulating curtains and blinds seem like a waste to me – they are enough thicker to add any significant R-value, they block the light, and if they end up far from the window, the shedding heat loss will more than offset any small advantage from the thick cloth.

One last window insulation option that’s worth mentioning is a reflective coating on the glass (an e-coating). This is not as bad an idea as you might think, even in a cold climate as in Detroit. A surprising amount of heat tends to escape your windows in the form of radiation. That is, the heat leaves by way of invisible (infra –red) light that passes unimpeded through the double pane glass. In hot climates even more heat comes in this way, and a coating is even more useful to preserve air conditioning power. Reflective plastic coats are cheap enough and readily available, though they can be hard to apply, and are not always attractive.

You can expect to reduce the window heat loss by a factor of 3 or more using these treatments, reducing the heat loss through the small window to $1.00 or so per month, far enough that the main heat loss is through the walls. At that point, it may be worth putting your efforts elsewhere. Window treatments can save you money, make a previously uninhabitable room pleasant, and can help preserve this fair planet of ours. Enjoy.

Updated, Feb 9, 2022, REB.

How hydrogen and/or water can improve automobile mileage (mpg)

7 Replies

In case you’ve ever wondered why it was that performance cars got such poor milage, or why you got such bad milage in the city, the biggest single problem has to do with the vacuum drawn by the engine, some of the problem has to do with the speed of combustion, some has to do with rolling friction, and some with start/stop loss too. Only a very small fraction of the energy is lost on air friction until you reach highway speeds.

Lets consider vacuum loss first as it is likely the worst offender. A typical US car, e.g. a Chevy Malibu, has a 3.5 liter engine (a performance car has an engine that’s much larger). As you toodle down a street at 35 mph, your engine is going at about 2000 rpm, or 33 rps. Since the power required to move the car is far less than the 200 hp that the car could deliver, the air intake is throttled so that the engine is sucking a vacuum of about 75 kpa (10 psi for those using English units). To calculate the power loss this entails, multiply 33*3.5*80; this is about 8662 Watts, or 12 hp. To find the energy use per mile, divide by your average speed, 25 mph (it would be 35 mph, but you sometimes stop for lights). 8 kW/25 mph = .21 kW-hr/mile. One finds, as I’ll show that the car expends more energy sucking this vacuum than pushing the car itself. This is where the majority of the city mpg goes in a normal car, but it’s worse in a high performance car is worse since the engine is bigger. In city driving, the performance mpg will be lower than for a Malibu even if the performance car is lighter, if it has better aerodynamics (it does), and if you never stop at lights.

The two other big places were city mileage goes is overcoming rolling friction and the need to stop and go at lights, stop signs, etc. The energy used for rolling friction is the force it would take to push your car on level ground when in neutral times the distance. For a typical car, the push force is about 70 lbs or 32 kgs or 315 Nt; it’s roughly proportional to the car’s weight. At 35 mph, or 15.5 m/s, the amount of power this absorbs is calculated as the product of force and speed: 15.5*315 = 4882 W, or about 6.5 hp. The energy use is 4.9 kW/35 mph =.14 kWhr/mile. The energy loss from stop lights is similar to this, about .16 kWhr/mile, something you can tell by getting the car up to speed and seeing how far it goes before it stops. It’ll go about 2-3 blocks, a little less distance than you are likely to go without having to stop. Air resistance adds a very small amount at these speeds, about 2000 W, 2.7 hp, or .05 kWhr/mile; it’s far more relevant at 65 mph, but still isn’t that large.

If you add all this together, you find the average car uses about .56 kWhr/mile. For an average density gasoline of 5.6 lb/gal, and average energy-dense gasoline, 18,000 BTU/lb, and an average car engine efficiency of 11000 BTU/kWhr, you can now predict an average city gas mileage of 16.9 mpg, about what you find experimentally. Applying the same methods to highway traffic at 65 mph, you predict .38 kWhr/mile, or 25 mpg. Your rpms are the same on the highway as in the city, but the throttle is open so you get more power and loose less to vacuum.

Now, how do you increase a car’s mpg. If you’re a Detroit automaker you could reduce the weight of the car, or you the customer can clean the junk out of your trunk. Every 35 lbs or so increases the rolling friction by about 1%. These is another way to reduce rolling friction and that’s to get low resistance tires, or keep the tires you’ve got full of air. Still, what you’d really like to do is reduce the loss to vacuum energy, since vacuum loss is a bigger drain on mpg.

The first, simple way to reduce vacuum energy loss is to run lean: that is, to add more air than necessary for combustion. Sorry to say, that’s illegal now, but in the olden days before pollution control you could boost your mpg by adjusting your carburator to add about 10% excess of air. This reduced your passing power and the air pollution folks made it illegal (and difficult) after they noticed that it excess air increased NOx emissions. The oxygen sensor on most cars keeps you from playing with the carburator these days.

Another approach is to use a much smaller engine. The Japanese and Koreans used to do this, and they got good milage as a result. The problem here is that you now had to have a very light car or you’d get very low power and low acceleration — and no American likes that. A recent approach to make up for some of the loss of acceleration is by adding a battery and an electric motor; you’re now making a hybrid car. But the batteries add significant cost, weight and complexity to these cars, and not everyone feels this is worth it. So now on to my main topic: adding steam or hydrogen.

There is plenty of excess heat on the car manifold. A simile use of this heat is to warm some water to the point where the vapor pressure is, for example, 50 kPa. The pressure from this water adds to the power of your engine by allowing a reduction in the vacuum to 50 kPa or less. This cuts the vacuum loss at low speeds. At high speed and power the car automatically increases the air pressure and the water stops evaporating, so there is no loss of power. I’m currently testing this modification on my own automobile partly for the fun of it, and partly as a preface to my next step: using the car engine heat to run the reaction CH3OH + H2O –> CO2 + H2. I’ll talk more about our efforts adding hydrogen elsewhere, but thought you might be interested in these fundamentals.

http://www.rebresearch.com