Hockey sticks have gotten bendier in recent years, with an extreme example shown below: Alex Ovechkin getting about 3″ of bend using a 100# stiffness stick. Bending the stick allows a player to get more power out of wrist shots by increasing the throw distance of the puck. There is also some speed advantage to the spring energy stored in the stick — quite a lot in Mr Ovechkin’s case.
Alexander Ovechkin takes a wrist shot using a bendy stick.
A 100# stiffness stick takes 100 pounds of force in the middle to get 1″ of bend. That Ovechkin gets 3″ of bend with his 100# stick suggests that he shoots with some 300 lbs of force, an insane amount IMHO. Most players use a lot less force, but even so a bendy stick should help them score goals.
There is something that bothers me about the design of Alex Ovechkin’s stick though, something that I think I could improve. You’ll notice that the upper half of his stick bends as much as the lower half. This upper-bend does not help the shot, and it takes work-energy. The energy in that half of the bend is wasted energy, and its release might even hurt the shooter by putting sudden spring-stress on his wrist. To correct for this, I designed my own stick, shown below, with an aim to have no (or minimal) upper bend. The modification involved starting with a very bendy stick, then covering most of the upper half with fiberglass cloth.
I got ahold of a junior stick, 56″ long with 60# flex, and added a 6″ extension to the top. Doing this made the stick longer, 62″ long (adult length) and even more bendy. One 1″ of flex requires less force on a longer stick. I estimate that, by lengthening the stick, I reduced it to about 44#. Flex is inversely proportional to length cubed. I then sanded the upper part of the stick, and wrapped 6 oz” fiberglass cloth (6 oz) 2-3 wraps around the upper part as shown, holding it tight with tape at top and bottom when I was done. I then applied epoxy squeezing it through the cloth so that the composite was nearly transparent, and so the epoxy filled the holes. This added about 15g, about 1/2 oz to the weight. Transparency suggested that the epoxy had penetrated the cloth and bonded to the stick below, though the lack of total transparency suggests that the bond could have been better with a less viscous epoxy. Once the epoxy had mostly set, I took the tape off, and stripped the excess fiberglass so that the result looked more professional. I left 23″ of fiberglass wrap as shown. The fiberglass looks like hockey tape.
Assuming I did the gluing right, this hockey stick should have almost all of the spring below the shooter’s lower hand. I have not measured the flex, but my target was about 80 lbs, with improved durability and the new lower center of bend. In theory, more energy should get into the puck. It’s a gift for my son, and we’ll see how it works in a month or so.
Heat exchange is a key part of most chemical process designs. Heat exchangers save money because they’re generally cheaper than heaters and the continuing cost of fuel or electricity to run the heaters. They also usually provide free, fast cooling for the product; often the product is made hot, and needs to be cooled. Hot products are usually undesirable. Free, fast cooling is good.
So how do you design a heat exchanger? A common design is to weld the right amount of tubes inside a shell, so it looks like the drawing below. The the hot fluid might be made to go through the tubes, and the cold in the shell, as shown, or the hot can flow through the shell. In either case, the flows are usually in the opposite direction so there is a hot end and a cold end as shown. In this essay, I’d like to discuss how I design our counter current heat exchangers beginning a common case (for us) where the two flows have the same thermal inertia, e.g. the same mass flow rates and the same heat capacities. That’s the situation with our hydrogen purifiers: impure hydrogen goes in cold, and is heated to 400°C for purification. Virtually all of this hot hydrogen exits the purifier in the “pure out” stream and needs to be cooled to room temperature or nearly.
Typical shell and tube heat exchanger design, Black Hills inc.
For our typical designs the hot flows in one direction, and an equal cold flow is opposite, I will show the temperature difference is constant all along the heat exchanger. As a first pass rule of thumb, I design so that this constant temperature difference is 30°C. That is ∆THX =~ 30°C at every point along the heat exchanger. More specifically, in our Mr Hydrogen® purifiers, the impure, feed hydrogen enters at 20°C typically, and is heated by the heat exchanger to 370°C. That is 30°C cooler than the final process temperature. The hydrogen must be heated this last 30°C with electricity. After purification, the hot, pure hydrogen, at 400°C, enters the heat exchanger leaving at 30°C above the input temperature, that is at 50°C. It’s hot, but not scalding. The last 30°C of cooling is done with air blown by a fan.
The power demand of the external heat source, the electric heater, is calculated as: Wheater = flow (mols/second)*heat capacity (J/°C – mol)* (∆Theater= ∆THX = 30°C).
The smaller the value of ∆THX, the less electric draw you need for steady state operation, but the more you have to pay for the heat exchanger. For small flows, I often use a higher value of ∆THX = 30°C, and for large flows smaller, but 30°C is a good place to start.
Now to size the heat exchanger. Because the flow rate of hot fluid (purified hydrogen) is virtually the same as for cold fluid (impure hydrogen), the heat capacity per mol of product coming out is the same as for mol of feed going in. Since enthalpy change equals heat capacity time temperature change, ∆H= Cp∆T, with effectiveCp the same for both fluids, and any rise in H in the cool fluid coming at the hot fluid, we can draw a temperature vs enthalpy diagram that will look like this:
The heat exchanger heats the feed from 20°C to 370°C. ∆T = 350°C. It also cools the product 350°C, that is from 400 to 50°C. In each case the enthalpy exchanged per mol of feed (or product is ∆H= Cp*∆T = 7*350 =2450 calories.
Since most heaters work in Watts, not calories, at some point it’s worthwhile to switch to Watts. 1 Cal = 4.174 J, 1 Cal/sec = 4.174 W. I tend to do calculations in mixed units (English and SI) because the heat capacity per mole of most things are simple numbers in English units. Cp (water) for example = 1 cal/g = 18 cal/mol. Cp (hydrogen) = 7 cal/mol. In SI units, the heat rate, WHX, is:
The flow rate in mols per second is the flow rate in slpm divided by 22.4 x 60. Since the driving force for transfer is 30°C, the area of the heat exchanger is WHX times the resistance divided by ∆THX:
A = WHX * R / 30°C.
Here, R is the average resistance to heat transfer, m2*∆T/Watt. It equals the sum of all the resistances, essentially the sum of the resistance of the steel of the heat exchanger plus that of the two gas phases:
R= δm/km + h1+ h2
Here, δm is the thickness of the metal, km is the thermal conductivity of the metal, and h1 and h2 are the gas-phase heat transfer parameters in the feed and product flow respectively. You can often estimate these as δ1/k1 and δ2/k2 respectively, with k1 and k2 as the thermal conductivity of the feed and product, both hydrogen in my case. As for, δ, the effective gas-layer thickness, I generally estimate this as 1/3 the thickness of the flow channel, for example:
h1 = δ1/k1 = 1/3 D1/k1.
Because δ is smaller the smaller the diameter of the tubes, h is smaller too. Also small tubes tend to be cheaper than big ones, and more compact. I thus prefer to use small diameter tubes and small diameter gaps. in my heat exchangers, the tubes are often 1/4″ or bigger, but the gap sizes are targeted to 1/8″ or less. If the gap size gets too low, you get excessive pressure drops and non-uniform flow, so you have to check that the pressure drop isn’t too large. I tend to stick to normal tube sizes, and tweak the design a few times within those parameters, considering customer needs. Only after the numbers look good to my aesthetics, do I make the product. Aesthetics plays a role here: you have to have a sense of what a well-designed exchanger should look like.
The above calculations are fine for the simple case where ∆THX is constant. But what happens if it is not. Let’s say the feed is impure, so some hot product has to be vented, leaving les hot fluid in the heat exchanger than feed. I show this in the plot at right for the case of 14% impurities. Sine there is no phase change, the lines are still straight, but they are no longer parallel. Because more thermal mass enters than leaves, the hot gas is cooled completely, that is to 50°C, 30°C above room temperature, but the cool gas is heated at only 7/8 the rate that the hot gas is cooled. The hot gas gives off 2450 cal as before, but this is now only enough to heat the cold fluid by 2450/8 = 306.5°. The cool gas thus leave the heat exchanger at 20°C+ 306.8° = 326.5°C.
The simple way to size the heat exchanger now is to use an average value for ∆THX. In the diagram, ∆THX is seen to vary between 30°C at the entrance and and 97.5°C at the exit. As a conservative average, I’ll assume that ∆THX = 40°C, though 50 to 60°C might be more accurate. This results in a small heat exchanger design that’s 3/4 the size of before, and is still overdesigned by 25%. There is no great down-side to this overdesign. With over-design, the hot fluid leaves at a lower ∆THX, that is, at a temperature below 50°C. The cold fluid will be heated to a bit more than to the 326.5°C predicted, perhaps to 330°C. We save more energy, and waste a bit on materials cost. There is a “correct approach”, of course, and it involves the use of calculous. A = ∫dA = ∫R/∆THX dWHX using an analytic function for ∆THX as a function of WHX. Calculating this way takes lots of time for little benefit. My time is worth more than a few ounces of metal.
The only times that I do the correct analysis is with flame boilers, with major mismatches between the hot and cold flows, or when the government requires calculations. Otherwise, I make an H Vs T diagram and account for the fact that ∆T varies with H is by averaging. I doubt most people do any more than that. It’s not like ∆THX = 30°C is etched in stone somewhere, either, it’s a rule of thumb, nothing more. It’s there to make your life easier, not to be worshiped.
Per pound mile of material, the transport cost by ship is 1/4 as much as by train, and about 1/8 as much as by truck. Ships are slower, it is true, but they can go where trucks and trains can not. They cross rivers and lakes at ease and can haul weighty freight with ease. I think America could use many more ferries, particularly drive-on, fast ferries. I don’t think we need new fast rail lines, because air travel will always be faster and cheaper. The Biden administration thinks otherwise, and spends accordingly.
Amtrak gets $30 Billion for train infrastructure this year, basically nothing for ferries.
The Biden administration’s infrastructure bill, $1.2 Trillion dollars total, provides $30 Billion this year for new train lines, but includes less than 1% as much for ferries, $220 million, plus $1B for air travel. I think it’s a scandal. The new, fast train lines are shown on the map, above. Among them is a speed upgrade to the “Empire Builder” train running between Chicago and Seattle by way of Milwaukee. I don’t think this will pay off — the few people who take this train, takes it for the scenery, I think, and for the experience, not to get somewhere fast.
There is money for a new line between Cleveland and Detroit, and for completion of the long-delayed, and cost-over-run prone line between LA and San Francisco. Assuming these are built, I expect even lower ridership since the scenery isn’t that great. Even assuming no delays (and there are always delays), 110 mph is vastly slower than flying, and typically more expensive and inconvenient. Driving is yet slower, but when you drive, you arrive with your car. With a train or plane, you need car rental, typically.
New Acela train, 150 mph max. 1/4 as fast as flying at the same price.
Drive-on ferries provide a unique advantage in that you get there with your car, often much faster than you would with by driving or by train. Consider Muskegon to Milwaukee (across the lake), or Muskegon to Chicago to Milwaukee, (along the lake). Cleveland to Canada, or Detroit to Cleveland. No land would have to be purchased and no new track would have to be laid and maintained. You’d arrive, rested and fed (they typically sell food on a ferry), with your car.
There’s a wonderful song, “City of New Orleans”, sung here by Arlo Guthrie describing a ride on the historic train of that name on a trip from Chicago to New Orleans, 934 miles in about one day. Including stops but not including delays, the average speed is 48 mph, and there are always delays. On board are, according to the song, “15 restless riders, 3 conductors, and 25 sacks of mail.” The ticket price currently is $200, one way, or about as much as a plane ticket. The line loses money. I’ve argued, here, for more mail use to hep make this profitable, but the trip isn’t that attractive as a way to get somewhere, it’s more of a land-cruise. The line is scheduled for an upgrade this year, but even if upgraded to 100 mph (14 hours to New Orleans including stops?) it’s still going to be far slower than air travel, and likely more expensive, and you still have to park your car before you get on, and then rent another when you get off. And will riders like it more? I doubt it, and doubt the speed upgrade will be to 100 mph.
Lake Express, 30 mph across Lake Michigan
Ferry travel tends to cost less than train or plane travel because water traffic is high volume per trip with few conductors per passenger. At present, there are only two ferryboats traveling across Lake Michigan, between Michigan and Wisconsin, Milwaulkee to Muskegon. They are privately owned, and presumably make money. The faster is the Lake Express, 30 mph. It crosses the lake in 2.5 hours. Passenger tickets cost $52 one way, or $118 for passenger and car. That’s less than the price of an Amtrak ticket or a flight. I think a third boat would make sense and that more lines would be welcome too. Perhaps Grand Haven to Racine or Chicago.
Route of the Lake Express. I’d like to see more like this; St. Joseph to Milwaukee say, and along Lake Erie.
Currently, there are no ferries across Lake Erie. Nor are there any along Lake Erie, or even across Lake St. Clair, or along the Detroit River, Detroit to Toledo or Toledo to Cleveland. These lines would need dock facilities, but they would have ridership, I think. New York’s Staten Island ferry has good ridership, 35,000 riders on a typical day, plus cars and trucks. In charge are roughly 120 engineers, captains and mates, one employee for every 300 passengers or so. By comparison, Amtrak runs 300 trains that carry a total of87,000 passengers on an average day, mostly on the east coast. These 300 trains are run by 17,100 employees as of fiscal year 2021, one employee for every 4 passengers. Even at the slow speeds of our trains the cost is far higher per passenger and per passenger mile.
The Staten Island ferry is slow, 18.5 mph, but folks don’t seem to mind. The trip takes 20 minutes, about half as long as most people’s trips on Amtrak. There are also private ferry lines in NY, many of these on longer trips. People would take ferries for day-long trips along our rivers, I think. Fast ferries would be nice, 40 mph or more, but I think even slow ferries would have ridership and would make money. A sea cruise is better than a land cruise, especially if you can have a cabin. On the coal-steam powered, Badger, you can rent a state-room to spend the night in comfort. Truckers seem to like that they cover ground during their mandatory rest hours. The advantage is maximized, I think, for ferry trips that take 12 hours or so, 250 to 350 miles. That’s Pittsburgh to Cincinnatti or Chicago to Memphis.
New York’s Staten Island ferry leaves every 15 minutes during rush hour. Three different sizes of boat are used. The largest carry over 5000 passengers and 100 cars and trucks at a crossing.
A low risk way to promote ferry traffic between the US and Canada would be to negotiate bilateral exemption to The Jones Act and its Canadian equivalent. Currently, we allow only US ships with US crews for US travel within the US.* Cabotage it’s called, and it applies to planes as well, with exemptions. Canada has similar laws and exemptions. A sensible agreement would allow in-country and cross-country travel on both Canadian and US ships, with Canadian and/or US crew. In one stoke, ridership would double, and many lines would be profitable.
Politicians of a certain stripe support trains because they look futuristic and allow money to go to friends. Europeans brag of their fast trains, but they all lose money, and Europe had to ban many short hop flights to help their trains compete. Without this, Europeans would fly. There is room to help a friend with a new ferry, but not as much as when you buy land and lay track. We could try to lead in fancy ferries going 40 mph or faster, providing good docks, and some insurance. Investors would take little risk since a ferry route can be moved**. Don’t try that with a train.
In Detroit we have a close up of train mismanagement involving the “People Mover.” It has no ridership to speak of. Our politicians then added “The Q line” to connect to it. People avoid both lines. I think people would use a ferry along the Detroit river, though, St. Claire to Wyandotte, Detroit, Toledo — and to Cleveland or Buffalo. Our lakes and rivers are near-empty superhighways. Let’s use them.
Robert Buxbaum, January 2, 2024. *The US air cabotage act (49 U.S.C. 41703) prohibits the transportation of persons, property, or mail for compensation or hire between points of the U.S. in a foreign civil aircraft. We’ve managed exemptions, though, e.g. for US air traffic with Airbus and Embraer planes. We can do the same with ferries.
** I notice that it was New York’s ferries, and their captains, that rescued the people on Sullenberger’s plane when it went down in the Hudson River — added Jan. 6.
Solar power is only available during the day, and people need power at night too. As a result, the people of a town will either need a lot of storage, or a back-up electric generator for use at night and on cloudy days. These are expensive, and use gasoline (generally) and they are hard to maintain for an individual. Central generated alternate power is cheaper, but the wires have to be maintained. As a result, solar power is duck curve, or canon curve power. It never frees you from hydrocarbons and power companies, and it usually saves no money or energy.
People need power at twilight and dawn too, and sunlight barely generates any power during these hours, and sometimes clouds appear and disappear suddenly while folks expect uniform power to their lights. The mismatch between supply and demand means that your backup generator, must run on and off suddenly. It’s difficult for small, home generators, but impossible for big central generators. In order to have full power by evening, the big generators need to run through the day. The result is that, for most situations, there is no value to solar power.
Installed solar power has not decreased the amount of generation needed, just changed when it is needed.
Power leveling through storage will address this problem, but it’s hardly done. Elon Musk has suggested that the city should pay people to use a home battery power leveler, a “power wall” or an unused electric car to provide electricity at night, twilight, and on cloudy days. It’s a legitimate idea, but no city has agreed, to date. In Europe, some locations have proposed having a central station that generates hydrogen from solar power during the day using electrolysis. This hydrogen can drive trucks or boats, especially if it is used to make hythane. One can also store massive power by water pumping or air compression.
Scottsbluff Neb. solar farm damaged by hail, 6/23.
In most locations, storage is not available, so solar power has virtually no value. I suspect that, at the very least, in these locations, the price per kWh should be significantly lower at noon on a sunny day (1/2 as expensive or less). The will cause people to charge their eVs at noon, and not at midnight. Adjusted prices will cause folks to do heavy manufacturing at noon and not at midnight. We have the technology for this, but not the political will, so far. Politicians find it easier to demand solar, overcharge people (and industry) and pretend to save the environment.
Sailing ships are wonderfully economic and non-polluting. They have unlimited range because they use virtually no fuel, but they tend to be slow, about 5-12 knots, about half as fast as Diesel-powered ships, and they can be stranded for weeks if the wind dies. Classic sailing ships also require a lot of manpower: many skilled sailors to adjust the sails. What’s wanted is an easily manned, economical, hybrid ship: one that’s powered by Diesel when the wind is light, and by a simple sail system when the wind blows. Anton Flettner invented an easily manned sail and built two ships with it. The Barbara above used a 530 hp Diesel and got additional thrust, about an additional 500 hp worth, from three, rotating, cylindrical sails. The rotating sales produced thrust via the same, Magnus force that makes a curve ball curve. Barbara went at 9 knots without the wind, or about 12.5 knots when the wind blew. Einstein thought it one of the most brilliant ideas he’d seen.
Force diagram of Flettner rotor (Lele & Rao, 2017)
The source of the force can be understood with help of the figure at left and the graph below. When a simple cylinder sits in the wind, with no spin, α=0, the wind force is essentially drag, and is 1/2 the wind speed squared, times the cross-sectional area of the cylinder, Dxh, and the density of air. Multiply this by a drag coefficient, CD, that is about 1 for a non-spinning cylinder, and about 2 for a fast spinning cylinder. FD= CDDhρv2/2.
A spinning cylinder has lift force too. FL= CLDhρv2/2.
Numerical lift coefficients versus time, seconds for different ratios of surface speed to wind speed, a. (Mittal & Kumar 2003), Journal of Fluid Mechanics.
As graphed in the figure at right, CL is effectively zero with sustained vibrations at zero spin, α=0. Vibrations are useless for propulsion, and can be damaging to the sail, though they are helpful in baseball pitching, producing the erratic flight of knuckle balls. If you spin a cylindrical mast at more than α=2.1 the vibrations disappear, and you get significant lift, CL= 6. At this rotation speed the fast surface moves with the wind at 2.1 times the wind speed. That is it moves significantly faster than the wind. The other side of the rotor moves opposite the wind, 1.1 times as fast as the wind. The coefficient of lift lift, CL= 6, is more than twice that found with a typical, triangular, non-rotating sail. Rotation increases the drag too, but not as much. The lift is about 4 times the drag, far better than in a typical sail. Another plus is that the ship can be propelled forward or backward -just reverse the spin direction. This is very good for close-in sailing.
The sail lift, and lift to drag ratio, increases with rotation speed reaching very values of 10 to 18 at α values of 3 to 4. Flettner considered α=3.5. optimal. At this α you get far more thrust than with a normal sail, and you can go faster than the wind, and far closer to the wind than with any normal sail. You don’t want α values above 4.2 because you start seeing vibrations again. Also more rotation power is needed (rotation power goes as ω2); unless the wind is strong, you might as well use a normal propeller.
The driving force is always at right angles to the perceived wind, called the “fair wind”, and the fair wind moves towards the front as the ship speed increases. Controlling the rotation speed is somewhat difficult but important. Flettner sails were no longer used by the 1930s because fuel became cheaper and control was difficult. Normal sails weren’t being used either for the same reasons.
In the early 1980s, there was a return to the romantic. Famous underwater explorer, Jacques Cousteau, revived a version of the Flettner sail for his exploratory ship, the Alcyone. He used aluminum sails, and an electric motor for rotation. He claimed that the ship drew more than half of its power from the wind, and claimed that, because of computer control, it could sail with no crew. This claim was likely bragging, but he bragged a lot. Even with today’s computer systems, people are needed to steer and manage things in case something goes wrong. The energy savings were impressive, though, enough so that some have begun to put Flettner sails on cargo ships, as a right. This is an ideal use since cargo ships go about as fast as a typical wind, 10- 20 knots. It’s reported that, Flettner- powered cargo ships get about 20% of their propulsion from wind power, not an insignificant amount.
And this gets us to the reason your curve ball does not curve: it’s likely you’re not spinning it fast enough. To get a good curve, you want the ball to spin at α =3, or about 1.5 times the rate you’d get by rolling the ball off your fingers. You have to snap your wrist hard to get it to spin this fast. As another approach, you can aim for α=0, a knuckle ball, achieved with zero rotation. At α=0, the ball will oscillate. It’s hard to do, but your pitch will be nearly impossible to hit or catch. Good luck.
Robert Buxbaum, March 22, 2023. There are also Flettner airplane designs where horizontal, cylindrical “wings” rotate to provide high lift with short wings and a relatively low power draw. So-far, these planes are less efficient and slower than a normal helicopter. The idea could bear more development work, IMHO. Einstein had an eye for good ideas.
Sharrow Marine introduced a new ship propeller design two years ago, at the Miami International Boat show. Unlike traditional propellers, there are no ends on the blades. Instead, each blade is a connecting ribbon with the outer edge behaving like a connecting winglet. The blade pairs provide low-speed lift-efficiency gains, as seen on a biplane, while the winglets provide high speed gains. The efficiency gain is 9-30% over a wide range of speeds, as shown below, a tremendous improvement. I suspect that this design will become standard over the next 10-20 years, as winglets have become standard on airplanes today.
A Sharrow propeller, MX-1
The high speed efficiency advantage of the closed ends of the blades, and of the curved up winglets on modern airplanes is based on avoiding losses from air (or water) going around the end from the high pressure bottom to the low-pressure top. Between the biplane advantage and the wingtip advantage, Sharrow propellers provide improved miles per gallon at every speed except the highest, 32+ mph, plus a drastic decrease in vibration and noise, see photo.
The propeller design was developed with paid research at the University of Michigan. It was clearly innovative and granted design patent protection in most of the developed world. To the extent that the patents are respected and protected by law, Sharrow should be able to recoup the cost of their research and development. They should make a profit too. As an inventor myself, I believe they deserve to recoup their costs and make a profit. Not all inventions lead to a great product. Besides, I don’t think they charge too much. The current price is $2000-$5000 per propeller for standard sizes, a price that seems reasonable, based on the price of a boat and the advantage of more speed, more range, plus less fuel use and less vibration. This year Sharrow formed an agreement with Yamaha to manufacture the propellers under license, so supply should not be an issue.
Vastly less turbulence follows the Sharrow propeller.
China tends to copy our best products, and often steals the technology to make them, employing engineers and academics as spys. Obama/Biden have typically allowed China to benefit for the sales of copies and the theft of intellectual property, allowing the import of fakes to the US with little or no interference. Would you like a fake Rolex or Fendi, you can buy on-line from China. Would you like fake Disney, ditto. So far, I have not seen Chinese copies of the Sharrow in the US, but I expect to see them soon. Perhaps Biden’s Justice Department will do something this time, but I doubt it. By our justice department turning a blind eye to copies, they rob our innovators, and rob American workers. His protectionism is one thing I liked about Donald Trump.
The Sharrow Propeller gives improved mpg values at every speed except the very highest.
I month ago, I wrote to endorse hythane, a mix of natural gas (methane) and 20-40% hydrogen. This mix is ideal for mobile use in solid oxide fuel cell vehicles, and not bad with normal IC engines. I’d now like to write about the advantages of an on-broad hydrogen generator to allow adjustable composition fuel mixes.
A problem you may have noticed with normal car engines is that a high hp engine will get lower miles per gallon, especially when you’re driving slow. That seems very strange; why should a bigger engine use more gas than a dinky engine, and why should you get lower mpg when you drive slow. The drag force on a vehicle is proportional to speed squared. You’d expect better milage at low speeds– something that textbooks claim you will see, counter to experience.
Behind these two problems are issues of fuel combustion range and pollution. You can solve both issues with hydrogen. With normal gasoline or Diesel engines, you get more or less the same amount of air per engine rotation at all rpm speeds, but the amount of air is much higher for big engines. There is a relatively small range of fuel-air mixes that will burn, and an even smaller range that will burn at low pollution. You have to add at least the minimal fuel per rotation to allow the engine to fire. For most driving that’s the amount the carburetor delivers. Because of gearing, your rpm is about the same at all speeds, you use almost the same rate of fuel at all speeds, with more fuel used in big engines. A gas engine can run lean, but normally speaking it doesn’t run at all any leaner than about 1.6 times the stoichiometric air-to-fuel mix. This is called a lambda of 1.6. Adding hydrogen extends the possible lambda range, as shown below for a natural gas – fired engine.
Engine efficiency when fueled with natural gas plus hydrogen as a function of hydrogen amount and lambda, the ratio of air to stoichiometric air.
The more hydrogen in the mix the wider the range, and the less pollution generally. Pure hydrogen burns at ten times stoichiometric air, a lambda of ten. There is no measurable pollution there, because there is no carbon to form CO, and temperature is so low that you don’t form NOx. But the energy output per rotation is low (there is not much energy in a volume of hydrogen) and hydrogen is more expensive than gasoline or natural gas on an energy basis. Using just a little hydrogen to run an engine at low load may make sense, but the ideal mix of hydrogen and ng fuel will change depending on engine load. At high load, you probably want to use no hydrogen in the mix.
As it happens virtually all of most people’s driving is at low load. The only time when you use the full horse-power is when you accelerate on a highway. An ideal operation for a methane-fueled car would add hydrogen to the carburetor intake at about 1/10 stoichiometric when the car idles, turning down the hydrogen mix as the load increases. REB Research makes hydrogen generators based on methanol reforming, but we’ve yet to fit one to a car. Other people have shown that adding hydrogen does improve mpg.
Carburetor Image from a course “Farm Power”. See link here. Adding hydrogen means you could use less gas.
Adding hydrogen plus excess air means there is less pollution. There is virtually no CO at idle because there is virtually no carbon, and even at load because combustion is more efficient. The extra air means that combustion is cooler, and thus you get no NOx or unburned HCs, even without a catalytic converter. Hydrogen is found to improve combustion speed and extent. A month ago, I’d applied for a grant to develop a hydrogen generator particularly suited to methane engines. Sorry to say, the DoT rejected my proposal.
The typical car has about 60 ft2 of exposed, non glass surface area, of which perhaps 2/3 is exposed to the sun at any time. If you covered the car with high-quality solar cells, the surfaces in the sun would generate about 15W per square foot. That’s about 600W or 0.8 horsepower. While there is no-one would would like to drive a 0.8 hp car, there is a lot to be said for a battery powered electric car that draws 6000 Wh of charge every sunny day — 6kWh per day– moving or parked — especially if you use the car every day, but don’t use it for long trips.
Owners of the Tesla sedans claim you can get 2.5 to 3 miles/kWhr for average driving suggesting that if one were to coat a sedan with solar cells, one day in the sun would generate 15 to 20 miles worth of cost-free driving power. This is a big convenience for those who only drive 15 to 20 miles each day, to work and back. As an example, my business is only 3 miles from home. That’s enough for the lightyear one, pictured below. The range would be higher for a car with a lighter battery pack, and some very light solar cars that have been proposed.
Lightyear one solar boosted plug in electric vehicle.
Solar power also provides a nice security blanket boost for those who are afraid of running out of charge on the highway, or far from home. If a driver gets worried during the day, he or she could stop at a restaurant, or park in the sun, and get enough charge to go a few miles, especially if you stick to country roads. Unlike gas-powered cars, where mpg is highest on the highway, electric vehicles get more miles per kWh at low speeds. It seems to me that there is a place for the added comfort and convenience of solar.
Most people assume that alkaline batteries are one-time only, throwaway items. Some have used rechargeable cells, but these are Ni-metal hydride, or Ni-Cads, expensive variants that have lower power densities than normal alkaline batteries, and almost impossible to find in stores. It would be nice to be able to recharge ordinary alkaline batteries, e.g. when a smoke alarm goes off in the middle of the night and you find you’re out, but people assume this is impossible. People assume incorrectly.
Modern alkaline batteries are highly efficient: more efficient than even a few years ago, and that always suggests reversibility. Unlike the acid batteries you learned about in highschool chemistry class (basic chemistry due to Volta) the chemistry of modern alkaline batteries is based on Edison’s alkaline car batteries. They have been tweaked to an extent that even the non-rechargeable versions can be recharged. I’ve found I can reliably recharge an ordinary alkaline cell, 9V, at least once using the crude means of a standard 12 V car battery charger by watching the amperage closely. It only took 10 minutes. I suspect I can get nine lives out of these batteries, but have not tried.
To do this experiment, I took a 9 V alkaline that had recently died, and finding I had no replacement, I attached it to a 6 Amp, 12 V, car battery charger that I had on hand. I would have preferred to use a 2 A charger and ideally a charger designed to output 9-10 V, but a 12 V charger is what I had available, and it worked. I only let it charge for 10 minutes because, at that amperage, I calculated that I’d recharged to the full 1 Amp-hr capacity. Since the new alkaline batteries only claimed 1 amp hr, I figured that more charge would likely do bad things, even perhaps cause the thing to blow up. After 5 minutes, I found that the voltage had returned to normal and the battery worked fine with no bad effects, but went for the full 10 minutes. Perhaps stopping at 5 would have been safer.
I changed for 10 minutes (1/6 hour) because the battery claimed a capacity of 1 Amp-hour when new. My thought was 1 amp-hour = 1 Amp for 1 hour, = 6 Amps for 1/6 hour = ten minutes. That’s engineering math for you, the reason engineers earn so much. I figured that watching the recharge for ten minutes was less work and quicker than running to the store (20 minutes). I used this battery in my firm alarm, and have tested it twice since then to see that it works. After a few days in my fire alarm, I took it out and checked that the voltage was still 9 V, just like when the battery was new. Confirming experiments like this are a good idea. Another confirmation occurred when I overcooked some eggs and the alarm went off from the smoke.
If you want to experiment, you can try a 9V as I did, or try putting a 1.5 volt AA or AAA battery in a charger designed for rechargeables. Another thought is to see what happens when you overcharge. Keep safe: do this in a wood box outside at a distance, but I’d like to know how close I got to having an exploding energizer. Also, it would be worthwhile to try several charge/ discharge cycles to see how the energy content degrades. I expect you can get ~9 recharges with a “non-rechargeable” alkaline battery because the label says: “9 lives,” but even getting a second life from each battery is a significant savings. Try using a charger that’s made for rechargeables. One last experiment: If you’ve got a cell phone charger that works on a car battery, and you get the polarity right, you’ll find you can use a 9V alkaline to recharge your iPhone or Android. How do I know? I judged a science fair not long ago, and a 4th grader did this for her science fair project.
Energy efficient furnaces use a surprisingly large amount of electricity to blow the air around your house. Part of the problem is the pressure drop of the ducts, but quite a lot of energy is lost bowing air through the dust filter. An energy-saving idea: replace the filter on your furnace twice a year or more. Another idea, you don’t have to use the fanciest of filters. Dirty filters provide a lot of back-pressure especially when they are dirty.
I built a water manometer, see diagram below to measure the pressure drop through my furnace filters. The pressure drop is measured from the difference in the height of the water column shown. Each inch of water is 0.04 psi or 275 Pa. Using this pressure difference and the flow rating of the furnace, I calculated the amount of power lost by the following formula:
W = Q ∆P/ µ.
Here W is the amount of power use, Watts, Q is flow rate m3/s, ∆P = the pressure drop in Pa, and µ is the efficiency of the motor and blower, typically about 50%.
With clean filters (two different brands), I measured 1/8″ and 1/4″ of water column, or a pressure drop of 0.005 and 0.01 psi, depending on the filter. The “better the filter”, that is the higher the MERV rating, the higher the pressure drop. I also measured the pressure drop through a 6 month old filter and found it to be 1/2″ of water, or 0.02 psi or 140 Pa. Multiplying this by the amount of air moved, 1000 cfm = 25 m3 per minute or 0.42 m3/s, and dividing by the efficiency, I calculate a power use of 118 W. That is 0.118 kWh/hr. or 2.8 kWh/day.
The water manometer I used to measure the pressure drop through the filter of my furnace. I stuck two copper tubes into the furnace, and attached a plastic tube half filled with water between the copper tubes. Pressure was measured from the difference in the water level in the plastic tube. Each 1″ of water is 280 Pa or 0.04psi.
At the above rate of power use and a cost of electricity of 11¢/kWhr, I find it would cost me an extra 4 KWhr or about 31¢/day to pump air through my dirty-ish filter; that’s $113/year. The cost through a clean filter would be about half this, suggesting that for every year of filter use I spend an average of $57t where t is the use life of the filter.
To calculate the ideal time to change filters I set up the following formula for the total cost per year $, including cost per year spent on filters (at $5/ filter), and the pressure-induced electric cost:
$ = 5/t + 57 t.
The shorter the life of the filter, t, the more I spend on filters, but the less on electricity. I now use calculus to find the filter life that produces the minimum $, and determine that $ is a minimum at a filter life t = √5/57 = .30 years. The upshot, then, if you filters are like mine, you should change your three times a year, or so; every 3.6 months to be super-exact. For what it’s worth, I buy MERV 5 filters at Ace or Home Depot. If I bought more expensive filters, the optimal change time would likely be once or twice per year. I figure that, unless you are very allergic or make electronics in your basement you don’t need a filter with MERV rating higher than 8 or so.
I’ve mentioned in a previous essay/post that dust starts out mostly as dead skin cells. Over time dust mites eat the skin, some pretty nasty stuff. Most folks are allergic to the mites, but I’m not convinced that the filter on your furnace dies much to isolate you from them since the mites, etc tend to hang out in your bed and clothes (a charming thought, I know).
Old fashioned, octopus furnace. Free convection.
The previous house I had, had no filter on the furnace (and no blower). I noticed no difference in my tendency to cough or itch. That furnace relied for circulation on the tendency for hot air to rise. That is, “free convection” circulated air through the home and furnace by way of “Octopus” ducts. If you wonder what a furnace like that looks like here’s a picture.
I calculate that a 10 foot column of air that is 30°C warmer than that in a house will have a buoyancy of about 0.00055 psi (1/8″ of water). That’s enough pressure to drive circulation through my home, and might have even driven air through a clean, low MERV dust filter. The furnace didn’t use any more gas than a modern furnace would, as best I could tell, since I was able to adjust the damper easily (I could see the flame). It used no electricity except for the thermostat control, and the overall cost was lower than for my current, high-efficiency furnace with its electrical blower and forced convection.
