Jump to content

Methane Hydrate - Very Cheap Fuel


Recommended Posts

The owners handbook actually says 0.76cc.

I had one in a control line model and when that wouldn't take any more patches and glue, built a free flight aircraft.

The engine was super-sensitive to just the right amount of compression to start, and after the one time I was able to get it started and the plane flew for half a mile a friend offered to buy it and I let him carry it home.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Flood them and they hydraulic quickly . Nev

Done that, then when you turn the compression tap to a certain point the kicked and the prop made your knuckles bleed.

These days I've got a big glow plug engine running on part nitromethane.

No prop flicking, I have a battery powered prop rotator so you can adjust the engine into tune until it starts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Once China works out how to run their power stations on the stuff - Oz coal is stuffed.

 

Japan is the big buyer of Australian power coal though they also have a methane hydrate project going.

 

No more coal money to Oz..........

 

 

 

 

.

 

That's a given anyway. Needn't be a problem if we got smart and thought about the future...

Link to post
Share on other sites

My first engine was a 1.5cc burford diesel. The commercial fuel ( Aeroflite ) was low in ether to begin with, and the ether evaporated faster than the kero and oil. This made the engine impossible to start. Of course we didn't know any of this at the time.

A mate of mine tried to start his every day after school for months. Mine started easier because my dad begged some ether from where he worked and so I mixed my own fuel. My mate got his going on this fuel too. Golly he had a good flick after all those months of practice.

In later years, methanol based fuel in glo engines was all the go. Now, electric is what I fly, mainly because it doesn't dirty your plane with oil.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a given anyway. Needn't be a problem if we got smart and thought about the future...

 

Yep!

 

If we were smart, instead of blocking new mines, we would be shipping as much of the stuff as we can right now to bring in that export income before the ‘spring’ drys up...?

 

 

 

 

 

.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Something I don't understand: Why not use wind and solar to electrolize water and use the products to make fuel? The intermittent nature of the energy would not matter as the product is stored. It must be the economics of capital expended vs income stream, but I don't personally see the problem.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Something I don't understand: Why not use wind and solar to electrolize water and use the products to make fuel? The intermittent nature of the energy would not matter as the product is stored. It must be the economics of capital expended vs income stream, but I don't personally see the problem.

I think it's just a very slow process; by the time you scale it up to match hydrogen demand you are looking at a big, stationary installation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep!

 

If we were smart, instead of blocking new mines, we would be shipping as much of the stuff as we can right now to bring in that export income before the ‘spring’ drys up...?

 

 

 

 

 

.

Yeah! And we can do that with asbestos too! Let's flog it off while we can!

 

Or we can be actually smart and think about what we're going to do when demand dies off for coal...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Using solar to make hydrogen from water using solar is good. It just needs an excessive amount of solar cells. One solar sell on a sunny day will produce enough energy to drive a Tesla 4km. With the losses of manufacturing hydrogen it would travel significantly less.

  • Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

You’re right on the money there. You can pretty much decide whether a fuel is viable by looking at its law per cubic metre performance for vehicles or aircraft. In this case a lot more cubic metres has to be burned for about 15% less power than ICE. The golden era so far for this gas was the late 1980s. The transport industry solved the volume problem by compressing it to 2000 psi and making huge tanks from fibreglass rovings and resin. In that era for some reason people didn’t like calling gases by their real name in the transport industry and it was called CNG, Compressed Natiral Gas. The tanks would be too big and heavy for aircraft. Benders Buslines in Geelong had 105 buses on CNG. All the truck trials failed and Benders reverted to diesel.Within 10 years it was all over. Currently works in gas-fires power stations.

 

 

Same problem with Hydrogen, the tanks would have to be huge and heavy, not viable for aircraft

Link to post
Share on other sites

Methane gas in reciprocating combustion engines have another problem. For a given cubic capacity and compression ratio the brake horsepower is significantly lower. As the flame velocity is quite low pre-ignition is not a usual problem. Hydrogen on the other hand has a flame velocity 10 times that of methane. Hydrogen makes a better bomb lol.

  • Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The price of All these new fuels will have to compete with our REDUCED fuel price of under the dollar a litre.

When the push comes th shove, will those oil companies give away their profits to the new interloper,

WETHER It,s LPG, CNG, HYDROGEN OR ANY NEW FUEL.

spacesailor

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

×
×
  • Create New...