New engine design

I doubt my old woody would notice much difference, but I think some of the fast boats might have a problem
I do not remember the number, but I seem to recal the potential energy trapped in sea water is quite substantial. As is clear, I am no chemist, and I am not a physisist, so I can only put ideas out there, but I know we have at least one chemist on the forum. There has got to be some way to convert the energy in sea water to mechanical energy efficiently. Generating hydrogyn, and creating a hydrogyn hybrid has good potential.

[never monday]

Google is great,
It takes 237.13kJ of energy to split H and O

Jeff, I got the point. Just didn't want to go to far on that track
Over the years, I have become very proficient at building things that do not work, and equally proficient at understanding why they do not work. I have lots of ideas, but I am hoping to get some explanaitions as to why they do not work BEFORE I build them
Pat, That is good info, but then the next question would be one of efficiency. How much mechanical energy can be generated by the amount of electrical energy needed to seperate out those hydrogyn atoms? Is it like the proverbial perpetual motion machine using a generater and an electric motor? (One of my early failed projects)

[coot]

Originally Posted by CaptainJeff

He also is suggesting that a big step forward in our national energy policy would be to get over the paralyzing fear of Three Mile Island (1979) and begin building nuclear power plants again, an idea with which I wholeheartedy agree.

There was an article in the Washington Post last Sunday by the founder of Greenpeace saying essentially that we should use more nuclear power because it does not contribute to global warming. That was pretty surprising.

[Richhh]

I think the most elegant and logical answer is: BACKBREEDING !!!!

Genetically reduce the human stature to instead of being at approx 6ft. tall back to about 18" tall. The reduction in humanoid stature/volume would require much less energy, less foodstuffs, less government intereference, etc. etc. etc. TEENY people wouldnt need as much natural resources - simple.

Houses would be 6ft X 6ft instead of 60ft by 60ft (average), cars would be the size of skateboards, sailboats would be 4 ft. instead of 40 ft. Yesiree! backbreeding is the answer.


No, that wouldnt work as the leftover unused natural resources would only cause another population explosion to fill the void.

Nope better solution: Sperm Control AND backbreeding!!!!! thats the ticket.

On a technical note the probable only thing we have thats energy efficient in the long haul is nuclear energy. Nuclear to make the energy for dissociation of water into hydrogen and oxygen for fuel cells, etc. Its just a question of economics, etc.
Alternative energy sources is just a poor sad joke when you consider the BTU or caloric needs of the present society ... the energy balance and output just isnt there..
...... and All the nuclear waste should be stored near Moss Landing, California !!!!!

;-)

The more things change, the more they stay the same.
In coming up with a more efficient internal combustion engine, friction is one of the main concerns. Few moving parts means less friction. The wankel rotary engine can be run on diesel, and might be an option. As I was looking around to see what is out there on diesel Wankels, I came across this sight: http://quasiturbine.promci.qc.ca/EIndex.htm This is a quasi turbine, and claims far greater efficiencey than a typical cumbustion engine. Still in the prototype stage, and a bit pricy, but an interesting concept. Anyone know much about turbine engines? What about a turbine with a hydraulic drive?

[DeepFrz]

Here is an interesting discussion on hydrogen.

http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid985.php

Seems it might happen sooner than I thought. Of course, someone might be blowing smoke up my ass.

Phil

Richhh, it already is Can't you see the glow?
While I firmly believe politics is behind the 16mpg gas guzzlers that still clutter our roadways, I really do not want this to become a political discussion. I seriously believe that a large group of intelligent people can come up with a viable solution. There is little incentive for the commercial market to do it. The returns will not support the R&D. If we want to make this happen, it will have to come from within the boating community from people who are not politically motivated, and can think outside the box.

[CaptainK]

Hear. Hear. I second Kai's notion!!!

[Alan Wheeler]

Put more boyancy under the stern of the boat, so as the boat is always pointing down hill and let gravity do the work for you.

There is a saying. "Our Ancesters keep steeling our inventions."

Hydrogen was played with in the late 60's and early 70's. But in reality, it takes more energy to produce the stuff than it takes to run the engine. So you still have to obtain energy from somewhere else first. In other words, you would have to plug into shore power and then produce the gas and store it so as you can then run the engine the next day.

Nuclear is still expensive. The dayly production of energy maybe ceap, but the initial cost is far in excess of that of any other fuel source. It is still only in the domain of very large populations to make it econimical to build and get a fair return on the energy. And unless someone has come up with a way of making that glow in the dark stuff not glow anymore, then the world has and always will have an issue with the waste. Were do you put it that we know it will be safe for 10,000yrs, not just a 100 or so, and how the heck do we transport it there in the first place. At least the USA disposes of it in there own country, but many other parts of the world can't dispose of the waste and every now and then, we have some ship being bounced around the Pacific as Nations play a game of hot potatoe with it. No one wants it even in their teritorial waters while it's enroute to a dumping point.

A jet engine is econimical in the sense that it can run for many more hrs before needing maintanance and can produce an enormouse amount of energy from a small space. But they are noisy and power still has to come from somewhere and that is fuel. It tends to be econimical because there are less moving parts that create friction. So a greater percentage of energy goes into the producing of end product power rather than friction.

There are two natural sources of imense energy around us, that I believe hold the answers. How we produce the Keys to unlocking it is the issue. We have an enourmouse amount of Magnetic energy above us and a mindbogglingly unbelievable amount of electrical energy flowing from the earth to the upper atmosphere continuously. Imagine if we could capture a simple bolt of lightening. One bolt will produce enough electricity to light NY city for a night. There are 2500 earth strikes per second around the world.

Lightning would be a great source if it could be reliably predicted, and harnessed, but I am not sure this will ever be possible within the limited space of a cruising boat. Magnetic energy has potential. As for jet engines. the idea of a quasi-turbine eleminates allot of the issues, such as noise that are problematic on turbines. While redesigning the wheel would be nice, even finding way to make the current technology substantialy more efficient would be a great accomplishment. I really think that this would be possible. Traditional engines using fewer moving parts, and innovations in bearing design that reduce friction to much lower levels for starters.

[swagman]

How about changing the single drive gearbox we all have, with something that actually has a range of gears? Just like a truck / car?

With the current single gear drive we all have on boats, we must surely be expending more fuel than we need to once we are up to speed?

An ability to slip into a much higher 'cruise' gearing once underway would surely reduce fuel consumption - and its using technology that's already developed...........

Has anyone any knowledge if anyone has added such gearing before now?

Cheers
JOHN

[Alan Wheeler]

Not really John. That's because the water is part of the drive train. And it works backwards kinda. In that it actually has the least loss at full speed. So the engine is actually working the hardest at it's maximum RPM. If you slipped it up a gear, the engine would become overloaded. The water acts kinda like a "torque converter" on the front end of an auto gearbox.

Hey guy's, what about wind and sails. No actually I mean more efficiency in this area. I know of a guy that had a cat with a fixed wing type sail on top. The wing could be turned and the entire craft steered by a small joystick. So he could litteraly back the craft out of his birth and then steer it where ever he wanted. Why haven't we seen more of this type of stuff. I know a Ship somewhere has three of theses wing things on top. So what's with the idea. Has it a big limitation or something??

[CaptainK]

Alan.

Do you have any google links. Where we could go look at this wing-ed sails that you mentioned.

Since the photo gallery "IS STILL DOWN"!! I suggest that you post a link, that shows the majority what you're talking about.

I know what you're talking about. But the others might not?

There are a couple of fishing boats around here with gear boxes. I assume they are efficient. Not really sure. On another thread adjustable pitch props were mentioned. A combo of an adjustable pitch prop, hydraulic drive (so the engine could always run at the most fuel efficient rpm), and a multi fuel rotary engine just might be the wave of the future. FWIW, there has been mention of a rotary diesel that was displayed at a Fla boat show a couple of years ago. I would be interested in any info anyone might have on this.