| ▲ | nialv7 2 months ago |
| Two questions I have: 1. How much of the fuel's energy is released as heat? They have a heat recapture device, but that's only used to preheat air/fuel, and not used to generate electricity. Is the energy in the heat simply discarded? 2. Can this be made to work without the process of burning? i.e. can it function purely from heat? If it can, it might be able to replace steam turbines in, for example, nuclear plants or CSP plants. That could be hugely beneficial. |
|
| ▲ | mppm 2 months ago | parent | next [-] |
| 1. The countercurrent heat exchanger achieves exactly that: exhaust gases are cooled while the inflowing fuel mixture is heated up. 2. Thermophotovoltaics in general can operate with any heat source, though this device is clearly optimized for combustion. However, the efficiency is far too low to compete in the large-scale power generation segment. This is almost certainly aimed at light aviation, heavy drones, military applications, etc., where there are not a lot of alternatives that combine small size, high power density and good efficiency. |
| |
| ▲ | EA-3167 2 months ago | parent | next [-] | | I suppose for aviation at least this is no less efficient than a gas turbine or a piston, and it's certainly a good deal quieter, has fewer moving parts, and requires less precision engineering than a jet engine. This feels tailor-made for attritable low->medium performance aviation, aka loitering munitions and drones. Strip away the "green" talk, and you're left with something that can burn just about anything (including hydrocarbons like avgas) without the complexity of a turbine. | | |
| ▲ | DaniFong 2 months ago | parent | next [-] | | maybe so. i don't know about attritable for the first applications though. may long range or duration oversight. a large % of the cost is these specialty cells which have not been scaled up to mass production. in the denominator is the intensity of light we can produce, which is based on how high a temperature we can drive, there's a very nonlinear brightness vs temperature. but at 100 suns or so we can get near to $1/W on the cells at startup scale | | |
| ▲ | EA-3167 2 months ago | parent [-] | | I can see that being a good use, ultra-quiet ISR that can stay aloft for extended times and doesn't require the complexity of a jet turbine? There has to be enormous demand for that. |
| |
| ▲ | amluto 2 months ago | parent | prev [-] | | Or turn it around a bit. If the entire device could operate at high pressure, then one could imagine putting it inside a jet or rocket engine. Feed it compressed fuel/air mix, burn, extract some energy via thermophotovoltaics, and blast the exhaust out a nozzle or use it to spin a turbine to drive a bypass fan. An obvious down side is that most jets have very, very high fuel flow and power output, and the area required to extract enough electricity to make this whole exercise worthwhile may be excessive. Also, a lot of military applications are not going to like that sodium illuminant lighting up the exhaust gasses, scattering radar, or otherwise making the plane more visible. edit: I see that there’s an effort to recirculate the sodium. Maybe that’s enough. |
| |
| ▲ | nialv7 2 months ago | parent | prev [-] | | Wouldn't it generate more heat than is needed to heat the fuel mixture? | | |
| ▲ | Dylan16807 2 months ago | parent | next [-] | | The end goal isn't to preheat the fuel, it's to keep the heat from escaping, because you want all the heat to go into the sodium. The heat is being used to generate electricity. | |
| ▲ | ordu 2 months ago | parent | prev [-] | | Fuel is burned to head sodium, if you are getting too much heat for your taste you can burn less fuel. It is kinda the goal of the exercise. But in any case, I believe that the more you heat sodium, the more light it emits, probably there is a practical limit on an incoming heat power after which the thing will go boom, but before that it will follow some roughly linear law: the more heat energy in, the more light comes out. Though I'm not a physicist, so I make be wrong, even if I do not see how I can be wrong. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | cryptonector 2 months ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 1. It's hard to capture all the waste heat. If you could run this indoors (but vent outdoors if the fuel is anything other than H2, naturally) then you could use some of the waste heat to heat a building. 2. There are thermovoltaic generators, but they're limited by the need to cool one side of the material. These are typically used in deep space probes that use Pu 240 to power them. To my knowledge thermovoltaic generation is not scalable or practical on Earth at this time. |
| |
|
| ▲ | DaniFong 2 months ago | parent | prev [-] |
| it can work purely from heat, however our process requires high temperature heat for power density. |