Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I did not say you can run an aircraft on methane. .....well, yer can, though the problems are as pointed out..?

 

 

Take note the Germans in WW2 ran aircraft on coal....... processed coal.

 

 

My thread starter comment again:

 

“...Methane hydrate is basically an unlimited source of material that can be converted into aircraft fuel...”

 

 

 

 

.

How?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Sorry...something weird happening with my reply

 

]

 

Essentially the same process as coal liquefaction. Both rely on the production and catalytic conversion of methane in a hydrogen rich environment. We have all this coal sitting here that no-one apparently wants and it’s only cost of processing that stops us building large scale plants like the Germans did in WWII.

 

Methane hydrate doesn’t offer anything over coal as a source of liquid fuels unless you are a net importer of coal, like China.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not true that CNG is a failure in vehicles. Currently, nearly a third of the Perth bus fleet (515 buses) of

 

Tens of millions of taxis, buses and private work mini vans in China are on CNG. I would say 1 in 3 Servos are CNG here

  • Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Tens of millions of taxis, buses and private work mini vans in China are on CNG. I would say 1 in 3 Servos are CNG here

There may be places in the world which use CNG; there are countries using 100% ethanol, but this is Australia, and its marketing suicide not to consider the vast distances and expectations of the consumers who have proven they are quite capable of killing a new model car which is just 15% off their expectation standards.

We could also talk about steam power, but the condenser problem will eventually rule it out.

There's nothing wrong with dreaming except the customer's expectations and reluctance to pay.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The magnificent Doble Bros Steamers are still quite a viable design, and nearly all the Doble Steamers built, have survived.

They were exceptionally fast, were very quiet, had enormous range, were mechanically simple, and were exceptionally durable.

The Doble Detroit steamer had key-start ignition, and could fire up in 90 seconds.

 

But the major reasons the Doble Steamer never survived, were;

1. The exceptional perfection of Abner Doble, which resulted in him continually tinkering with design modifications, rather than concentrating on producing one model in serious numbers.

2. 90 seconds was still too long to wait for ignition, for car owners who wanted virtually instant ignition, as IC engines produced.

3. The enormous cost of the Doble cars, due to the Dobles need to build everything from the best and most expensive materials.

4. The lawsuit over stock manipulation by Abner Doble, based on a technicality, effectively bankrupted the Doble Company.

5. The Great Depression finished them off, as it did most luxury car manufacturers.

 

With todays technology and refinement of the Doble design, a 2020 model Doble car could easily compete with IC and EV vehicles.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The magnificent Doble Bros Steamers are still quite a viable design, and nearly all the Doble Steamers built, have survived.

They were exceptionally fast, were very quiet, had enormous range, were mechanically simple, and were exceptionally durable...

 

...

 

Steams great stuff. Still used in many applications. As to a vehicle ‘engine’ it is probably only a goer if all yer got is wood or coal for fuel.

 

Near the end of the steam train age many steam engines were converted to oil fired - they carried a big tank of oil behind them instead of a coal wagon. It wouldn’t have been much to realise even back then why not put a smaller diesel power plant in and get away from the ‘constant loss’ steam engine.

 

 

A future project: I’ve got a bit of belt drive machine shop equipment that will be powered by a steam engine....... ?

 

 

 

 

 

.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Steam is inherently inefficient due to the high latent heat of vapourisation of water as well as the need to have a closed system where water is scarce. Nev

  • Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a Holden HQ Ute back in the 70s & had a CNG kit installed virtually free with the government subsidy so it was dual fuel. CNG was cheap & all the petrol stations had CNG filling pumps. The tank sat on the tray behind rear window & was made of very thick steel or cast iron. CNG did not produce the same power as petrol and if I had a load on and was going up a hill I could switch back to petrol for the extra power. The CNG was much cleaner than petrol though. Once the crisis was over it wasn't long before all the CNG powered vehicles began to disappear & petrol stations pulled all the filling stations out.

 

In the 50s I had model aircraft with diesel engines 0.75cc & 1.5cc & the fuel was a mixture of Ether that I had to buy from the Chemist, Kerosene and Castor oil. I really liked the smell of the exhaust fumes.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

In the 50s I had model aircraft with diesel engines 0.75cc & 1.5cc & the fuel was a mixture of Ether that I had to buy from the Chemist, Kerosene and Castor oil. I really liked the smell of the exhaust fumes.

 

My fingers can still remember when the king kat 1.5 diesel would fire well before top dead centre.

Yw68074.jpg.fc7f08cac5e851e337055d04f1cd80de.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

KGW - You're mistaking CNG (Compressed Natural Gas) with LPG (Liquid Propane Gas). LPG is a combination of propane and butane, with propane forming the largest constituent.

It liquifies easily at low pressure, so LPG tanks do not need high strength construction. It normally sold for about 40% the price of petrol and was popular with taxi owners.

 

LPG is largely a waste product from oil refining, and it was utilised as a fuel for cars and light commercials, in increasing amounts in the 70's, 80's and 90's - particularly in VIC. and S.A.

It was distributed to every service station, even remote servos supplied it. But then, once Govt subsidies and support for LPG evaporated in the early 2000's, use of LPG fell right away.

 

CNG is natural gas that is largely methane. It is compressed to high pressures in extremely strong tanks to around 20-25MPa, but it never liquifies in the tanks, as LPG does.

Edited by onetrack
  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

My first was a Frog 150 diesel and I wrecked all the fingers and thumbs of both hands before I got the knack. Nev

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

When I first used LPG in Vic the gas was 4 cents/litre. It cost almost nothing to run the vehicle. I've still got an early AU 98 Fairmont on Gas . I know no vehicle you can run cheaper (in Melbourne).. Nev

Link to post
Share on other sites

The beauty of LPG is the total lack of carbon, leading to a cleaner engine, cleaner oil, and much less cylinder/ring/piston wear. You could take oil changes out to 15,000-20,000 kays on LPG.

Around the late 1980's, I can recall seeing a red 202 Holden motor in an LPG-powered Commodore taxi, stripped down for a valve grind at 400,000kms, and the bore wear was non-existent.

But the higher combustion temperature of LPG is murder on valve seats and valves. You need to have hardened valves seats, and preferably stellite valves, to ensure long valve/valve seat life on LPG - particularly if you're doing highway speeds.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The beauty of LPG is the total lack of carbon, leading to a cleaner engine, cleaner oil, and much less cylinder/ring/piston wear. You could take oil changes out to 15,000-20,000 kays on LPG.

Around the late 1980's, I can recall seeing a red 202 Holden motor in an LPG-powered Commodore taxi, stripped down for a valve grind at 400,000kms, and the bore wear was non-existent.

But the higher combustion temperature of LPG is murder on valve seats and valves. You need to have hardened valves seats, and preferably stellite valves, to ensure long valve/valve seat life on LPG - particularly if you're doing highway speeds.

You could in fact sum up the ideal applications for LPG as "intermittant power" applications because they allowed the combustion chamber to cool down. "Constant power demand" like highway cruise into a headwind allowed a straightline temperature increase - a bit the same as rotaries.

The customers didn't know or want to know the difference, just wanted to do the same as they did with petrol engines, so some of them slagged LPG, but in urban operations, fork lift trucks etc. the 400,000 km valve grind was the norm.

In the finish we couldn't achieve the emission standards with LPG and had to drop it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope onetrack, propane does have carbon in it. C3H8 I think it is.

One good use is as a refrigerant. It can cost big money to recharge your car's airconditioner, so I recommend trying propane first.

Link to post
Share on other sites

KGW - You're mistaking CNG (Compressed Natural Gas) with LPG (Liquid Propane Gas). LPG is a combination of propane and butane, with propane forming the largest constituent.

It liquifies easily at low pressure, so LPG tanks do not need high strength construction. It normally sold for about 40% the price of petrol and was popular with taxi owners.

 

LPG is largely a waste product from oil refining, and it was utilised as a fuel for cars and light commercials, in increasing amounts in the 70's, 80's and 90's - particularly in VIC. and S.A.

It was distributed to every service station, even remote servos supplied it. But then, once Govt subsidies and support for LPG evaporated in the early 2000's, use of LPG fell right away.

 

CNG is natural gas that is largely methane. It is compressed to high pressures in extremely strong tanks to around 20-25MPa, but it never liquifies in the tanks, as LPG does.

Nope it was CNG. This was in NZ after the Oil crisis in the late 70s Lots of people converted their vehicles as the subsidy paid for almost all of it. There were LPG conversions too but they weren't subsidised & mostly had similar tanks to what they have today but they were normally mounted under the vehicle. You could not fill your own CNG tank. The petrol stations had a trained refueller due to the high pressure.

 

NZ had and still has lots of Natural Gas, a number of the wells were off shore near Mount Taranaki. A pipeline was constructed to supply gas to Auckland and then a second bigger one built also to fuel the power station at Huntly not far from where I lived. It was designed to run on coal or gas but was only run on coal for a very short period just to make sure everything worked. Millions of tons of coal was mined and then dumped in huge mounds that became hills close to the power station covered with dirt and grassed over. They are still there.

  • Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

My fingers can still remember when the king kat 1.5 diesel would fire well before top dead centre.

[ATTACH type=full" alt="Yw68074.jpg]52121[/ATTACH]

My .76 cc engine is a Davies Charlton Merlin and the 1.5cc engine is AM & doesn't have a model name but it does have a blue anodised cylinder and integrated fuel tank.. I still have them both as well as the original owners handbooks and some spare parts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to relate, that my very first efforts at model airplane building, at age 11 (1960) - the aircraft result was excellent, I ended up with a beaut little model Mustang, made from a Balsa kit.

But then I purchased a little engine, that I recall, looked identical to Thruster88's King Kat - but that engine absolutely refused to run! - no matter what we tried!

 

I had numerous helpful adults try to get that engine to run - but it defeated all attempts to make it go. It would sputter and try to run, but never ran for more than a second or two.

I gave up in disgust, the Mustang went into storage for about 35 years - and then I think I sold the Mustang and engine for a few bucks, in a garage sale cleanout about 1995.

 

I have never been so sorely disappointed, in anything that I ever bought, as that bloody model aircraft. I lost interest completely in model aircraft due to that fiasco.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I have a MERLIN too in brand new condition.. Nev

Well at least there are 2 of us here who can honestly say "I own a Merlin Engine".

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...