Computer-chip gas turbine generators

[BlackBat242]

I don't know if anyone picked up on this back when it first was reported, but what are your thoughts on this technology?

Peewee Power

The invention of a gas-fueled generator the size of a quarter heralds a future of ever-smaller machines

By Fred Hapgood; Smithsonian magazine, July 2002
.....

Epstein and his coworkers have won over doubters with a prototype turbine the size of a quarter that, though crude in some respects, will eventually generate enough power to run a cell phone. That may not sound like much to show for seven years of high-intensity research, but turbine experts say it’s a huge accomplishment. Commercial and military applications for such a power source abound.

Ounce for ounce, a minuscule turbine generator fueled by kerosene could produce 10 to 20 times the power of a conventional battery. A computer laptop might run continuously for a week on one cartridge; a cell phone cartridge might fuel 72 hours of conversation. Ultimately, though, Epstein speculates, the virtue of microturbine-powered consumer electronics won’t be how much longer they operate but how much smaller and lighter the components might be.

A chief supporter of the microturbine generator project is the U.S. Army, which wants portable, lightweight power sources to run an arsenal of electronic devices such as radios, computers and satellite-based navigation equipment. "As soldiers get more electronic and they’re farther from outlets, power sources become more important," Epstein says.
.....

Epstein is the first to caution that the technology still isn’t ready for prime time. The microturbine generates a lot of heat, and he has yet to implement a solution for cooling the mechanism or its exhaust. After all, no one’s going to put a scorching hot cell phone to her ear. For now, Epstein says, "we have the world’s first jet-powered hair dryer." That’s no mere joke. He has actually been approached by a company interested in producing a hair dryer that isn’t plugged in (always an electrocution hazard). As it is, Epstein’s group has a contract with the Army that calls for the scientists to demonstrate a microturbine generator within four years. That deadline, he says, is no problem.

Engine on a chip promises to best the battery

PhysOrg.com
by Nancy Stauffer; September 19, 2006
.....

The researchers say that in the long term, mass-production could bring the per-unit cost of power from microengines close to that for power from today's large gas-turbine power plants.
.....

"Big gas-turbine engines can power a city, but a little one could 'power' a person," said Epstein, whose colleagues are spread among MIT's Gas Turbine Laboratory, Microsystems Technology Laboratories, and Laboratory for Electromagnetic and Electronic Systems.

A quick Google didn't turn up any recent articles on the technology, so either it never worked right... or the US Army has classified it, and is working on military applications.

 

[Rover]

I never heard of this, but it sure sounds cool. Lots of great Travllerish applications.

 

[hdan]

That does sound interesting from a purely academic viewpoint, but do we really want to be pursuing more combustion-based approaches to power?

I know petrochemicals are incredibly dense ways to store energy and all, but a cell phone with a tail pipe seems inherently wrong somehow.

I do however like the idea of the jet-powered hair dryer. That's comedy gold!

 

[far-trader]

Well, for such a small scale engine, especially if clean burning, the emissions would probably be negligible. Far less I'd guess than from the internal combustion engine we're all born with And it beats batteries in not making more permanent and more lethal heavy metals that just end up in the environment during production and end of life disposal (since so few are recycled).

The real breakthrough would be micro fuel cells burning hydrogen with water exhaust. This might just be the progression to that, and would see us through to it.

I'm curious what the sound level was?

 

[DaveChase]

...

The real breakthrough would be micro fuel cells burning hydrogen with water exhaust. This might just be the progression to that, and would see us through to it.

I'm curious what the sound level was?

WHAT? I Can't Hear You.

Let me turn down my Turbine Generator on My Cell phone.



That's better. What were you saying?

:rofl:

Cyberpunk meets Steampunk in Cell phone technology.


Dave Chase

 

[Icosahedron]

I was trying to picture fifty people in a railway carriage choking on each other's laptop exhaust...

As FT says, as a forerunner of a H2O fuel cell, it could be good, though.

However, as a side note, I think this:

And it beats batteries in not making more permanent and more lethal heavy metals that just end up in the environment during production and end of life disposal (since so few are recycled).

is a common 'save the world' fallacy. Nobody creates heavy metals - we just dig them up from one place and bury them in another.

 

[far-trader]

...a common 'save the world' fallacy. Nobody creates heavy metals - we just dig them up from one place and bury them in another.

My bad for using the lay-term. Fine, they aren't "created". However the real fallacy (the 'big business can do no harm' fallacy) is that they were equally harmful while buried deep underground, locked into other minerals.

Extracting them often requires extensive use of deadly toxins and produces fine, refined particulates as a waste byproduct, all of which are released through the whole process as more contaminates. And in the end of life "burying" they aren't buried very deep at all and often leech contaminates into local ground water. Or they end up being burned and the contaminates are put into the air.

 

[far-trader]

I was trying to picture fifty people in a railway carriage choking on each other's laptop exhaust...

As I noted above, perhaps not clearly enough, I expect the fifty people you're concerned for will be exhaling more CO just sitting there typing than their laptops will produce at full power

 

[Icosahedron]

As I noted above, perhaps not clearly enough, I expect the fifty people you're concerned for will be exhaling more CO just sitting there typing than their laptops will produce at full power

But what about the other particulates and contaminants?

Offhand, I've no idea what the power consumption of a laptop is, nor the energy density of hydrocarbons, so I can't figure how much exhaust there would be. It was just an amusing cartoon in my head of fifty pairs of eyes blinking through a scribbly smog.

My bad for using the lay-term. Fine, they aren't "created". However the real fallacy (the 'big business can do no harm' fallacy) is that they were equally harmful while buried deep underground, locked into other minerals.

Extracting them often requires extensive use of deadly toxins and produces fine, refined particulates as a waste byproduct, all of which are released through the whole process as more contaminates. And in the end of life "burying" they aren't buried very deep at all and often leech contaminates into local ground water. Or they end up being burned and the contaminates are put into the air.

Which is an argument against the manufacturing process rather than against the manufacturing itself (where some of the radicals would have us go) - but enough politics, let's just look forward to the fuel-cell version.

Coming back to Traveller, what does this mean for the power plant tables if TL7/8 can produce such things?

 

[aramis]

Laptops generally run (current generation) 30-100 watts, depending on a lot of factors. The 15" macbook pro battery is (pulls battery, checks) 10.5v 60W nominal.

 

[Icosahedron]

Mutter, grumble. Thanks Aramis, now I can't help figuring it out!

so, at 30-odd MJ/L, with lots of rounding, that runs to about 500k seconds per litre, or around 140 hours/L, so your laptop might run for around 12 hours on a 100cc tank

I figure around 400 laptops = 1 car exhaust. Ok, a few laptops in a railway carriage won't kill you - not in the short term, anyway.

Edit: not accounting for losses.

 

[whartung]

The other consideration is simply heat. Folks complain about the heat in laptops today as is without the 1600 deg exhaust temp microturbine.

Also, I imagine that the amount of power available is a combination of the magnets in the generator and the speed of the armature. More weight (i.e. better magnets) == more power. One of the advantages of battery tech is that the battery can be spread wide to provide good handling characteristics compared to the weight of most any kind of generator.

There's it also the potential centripetal force effect of the spinning armature, turning the device in to a informal gyroscope, depending on the armature weight.

I can see real value in a military setting, where a smaller (but not tiny) turbine can can man portable. This turbine can power high power devices (say sophisticated satellite devices), laser capacitors perhaps, or, also, can be used to charge the batteries of other devices. At night the mini generator comes out and the squad plugs their iPhones in for charging. During patrol, it's packed up.

Or it can be used as an "instant on" technology for, say, the radio. Like a hybrid is today. The radio works off of a battery but when they flick the High Power switch for more range, the turbine kicks in to augment or recharge the battery.

Civilian apps seem less forthcoming. Most folks don't need the higher power devices, even in the back country. They can charge their phones with solar cells stitched in to their boonie hats while hiking. And those not hiking would likely have a vehicle nearby that can provide power, or at least host a larger microturbine power plant for their local needs (keg cooler, satellite TV, 40" big screen for the tail gate party at the big game...).

The primary benefit of the MT over a Battery is simply it can be recharged with a funnel and a gas can, so can provide continuous power. Then it becomes a game of power plant density/size/efficiency vs output. I believe one of the modern premises of turbine technology is that they're more efficient fuel wise than, say, a generic internal combustion engine, thus making them well suited for on site generators. But whatever efficiencies they gain I guess are not overcome compared to the sunk infrastructure surrounding gasoline and diesel motors, their management and repair. Perhaps noise and heat are an issue.

Clearly they're used in aircraft because of the HP/weight ratio they provide, but on land perhaps the weight and possible fuel benefits don't apparently outweigh modern diesel and gasoline technology. I've not seen a construction site with a trailer mounted turbine generator, for example. There could simply be a cost factor, today, as many modern naval ships are using turbine tech for their power plants, but the military is not as cost sensitive as others in the market.

So, as price comes down (i.e. TL goes up), perhaps turbine generators will be the go to COTS solution for away or wilderness teams prior to ubiquitous fusion power plants in Traveller.

 

[far-trader]

There's it also the potential centripetal force effect of the spinning armature, turning the device in to a informal gyroscope, depending on the armature weight.

We are talking very small here, it's probably negligible. Though it could be a hidden feature if enough and/or properly exploited (built in gyrocompass for one).

 

[DaveChase]

Professor Alan Epstein has a patent (?) on a 100mm size turbine generator that can produce up to 1kW of power.

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6866478.html

There is more about the micro turbine generator here


http://thefutureofthings.com/articles/49/engine-on-a-chip.html



Dave Chase

 

[RainOfSteel]

This article is more recent than the two posted links:

http://thefutureofthings.com/articles.php?itemId=49/58/