h a l f b a k e r yWarm and Fussy
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
With the proper design considerations taken into account.
Such a generator could be constructed to handle the
extremely volatile mix. Including its shockwave output.
Construct structuraly reinforced tubes verticaly
underground ( for safety concerns ) That have a protective
lining (EM transparent,
yet structurely strong enough to
reflect the shockwave ) behind said lining would be
induction field coils. Located at the bottom of the shaft
would be an injector/detonator assembly. And in the
center of the shaft would be a computer designed projetile
(exterior lined with permanent magnets) which base is
designed to 'ride' the shock wave produced from the
Nitroglycerine detonation. Thus upon detonation, the
projectile is propelled verticaly within the shaft to its apex.
(Its apex to be determined in the preliminary testing stages
and computer modeling. After which shaft to be 2 times the
projected apex for safety concerns) Thus producing
electricity (via the magnets passing by the field coils),both
on the inital vertical accent. As well on its vertical decent
via gravitational pull. Before the projectile strikes bottom
another burst of fuel is detonated to continue the process.
(Of course for safety concerns the lower field coils could
be used as a retarder to protect the injector/detenator
assembly in case of its failer )Refinements to materials used
for stated generator would be continual to lengthen the
projected life exspectancy of the generator.
More volatile
http://www.geotherm...kerung/uspatent.htm
If you think my idea is volatile, this one is far more . And it recieved a patent. [MySoulWanders, Mar 07 2005]
LOW COST , LOW Energy usage NITROGEN Generator
http://irgaragesolutions.com/n2/
[MySoulWanders, Mar 09 2005]
BaconBrain's confusion
Nitroglycerine_20Engine
[MySoulWanders, Mar 10 2005]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Annotation:
|
| |
Nitroglycerine isn't a natural resource. (It's too volataile to have been sitting around for thousands of years.) Energy is rquired to synthesize it. So, in essence, this is like a power plant that runs on AA batteries. |
|
| |
Of course you could always genetically engineer bacteria to produce nitroglycerine, but we already have microorganisms that produce ethanol and methane, and besides you'd still get fishboned. |
|
| |
In Respones to "Toadinnov": This is a proposal for a alternative approach for electrical generation. Not a "get rich quick" infomercial. Nor is it a "free energy" concept. Nuclear power generation runs on simular concept of using the potential energy in a retained in a hazardous substance. But unlike Nuclear, this proposal leaves no radioactive residue from its process. |
|
| |
In Response to "humanbean": This proposal is for conversion of the Detonation Shockwave into useable electric energy, rather than conversion of the heat output. |
|
| |
In Response to "TerranFury": This proposal is for alternative fuel to generate electrical energy. Nitroglycerine (C3H5N3O9) the energy requried for it's creation is less than some other fuels like "Gasoline" which technicaly isn't a naturaly occuring either. It requires alot of energy to extract the crude oil from the ground,and ship it to a refinery to process it. So that it can be useable for automotive or electrical generation. Not to mention. The amount of labor involved and lives at risk during all the steps needed to produce a gallon of gas. Unlike this proposed process. That which could be entirely automated with minimal human supervision. That at which could be done offsite. Nitroglycerine is not volitile until the entire blend of chemicals are put together. (link:http://www.nobel.se/nobel/alfred-nobel/biographical/life-work/nitrodyn.html)
This blending of the nonvolotile ingredients into the form of the volotile Nitroglycerine would only occur in the injector assembly of the proposed generator. Therefore elimateing the risk involoved in storage of volotile fuel like those traditionaly used in electricity production. (such as Oil, Coal, Natural Gas,Methane Gas)And unlike the generators requried to convert the heat energy using those fuels. This generator is far more less complex to run and maintain. |
|
| |
In Response to "kropotkin": Both ethanol and methane are slow to combust, thus best suited for producing heat energy and slow gradual electrical generation. Nitroglycerine is extremely fast combusting, there best for using as previously described for quick electrical generation. |
|
| |
In Response to "humanbean": |
|
| |
1. Indeed heat energy could also be extracted from the pulse event. Possibly via thermoelectric lining with the shaft as well. And on the bottom surface of the projectile. |
|
| |
2. Indeed the process is exothermic in nature. Through the process of the cooling of the creation of the trinitroglycerine, the heat energy can be converted to electricity as well through technology like thermoelectric conversion. Since the proposed process would be mostly automated. The handling, processing and reuse of the acids involved in the trinitroglycerin would be less hazardous to humans due to the automation. (Acids are commonly handled daily, ie: Hydrocloric acid for one in the steel industry, which is sprayed and reused ) So it is techincaly feasible to engineer a system of acid use, recovery and reuse with the generation plant. The EPA can easily be appeased by sufficently designed equipment and facilities to handle,use and reuse the acids involved. As with ANY power generation plant there is always trade offs for the electrical production. There is no man made energy conversion that is 100% efficent in its implementation. |
|
| |
3. As with any engineering project, factors like 'eddy current' and 'linear speeds' are carefuly calculated and tested in computer simulation models. Before the actual prototype facility is built. Example would be Nuclear Power Plants. They did alot of testing and calculations on how to convert the heat energy from the nuclear core. Before anything was ever built. This proposal is a theory of energy conversion from a alternative fuel source. |
|
| |
5. I am well aware of the complexities of Engineering. Just because the prospect seems impossible at first thought. Doesn't mean that it IS impossible to implement. Every seasoned engineer knows that everything starts out as a theory. Without theorys to challenge the engineer to think outside the norm, we would all be stuck riding horse and buggys. And killing whales for lamp oil to light our homes. |
|
| |
How do you keep from getting ripped off with ideas like this? |
|
| |
BTW Check out this guy.
Similar idea.
http://www.mogen.net/page1.html |
|
| |
Just think of the OSHA headaches. |
|
| |
The best application I've seen so far is in South America. They have tidal powered pumps submerged off-shore, which fill an on-shore reservoir. The reservoir empties back into the ocean, after passing through turbines. |
|
| |
In Response to "rickdog": 1. I am not concerned with being "ripped off". 2. Thanks for the link, Mogen seems like an interesting proposal. With simular connections. |
|
| |
In Response to "btunell": Those South American tidal turbine system could easily be adapted to use the Nitroglycerine blast shock wave to induce a tidal front to operate their turbines. Which since the blast would be offshore, OSHA wouldn't have much concern. As for the sea life, well they could be netted off, or detered with sonar accoustics. |
|
| |
Good and sound idea. I propose using a giant pogo stick to do the same, gyroscopically stabilized. of course. The waste heat disposal is better that way and is much more decorative. Wait, why don't we use it for transport "giant nitroglycerine propelled pogo sticks". Sounds like music to me. |
|
| |
In Response to "finflazo":
1. Annotated objections, based on descriptive perceived flaws in the proposed theory are very much welcome and embraced for debate. |
|
| |
2. Annotations that are wanton attempts to just ridicule , will be deleted. |
|
| |
I found this on explosive pogo sticks :
www.lightlink.com/bbm/wpogo.html
So there!. |
|
| |
Consider, what you are proposing is an internal combustion engine, except using fuel which is a lot less economical than hydrocarbons. Plus, when a shockwave hits a piston, it's not going to carry the piston along with it, it'll displace it a bit and then just propagate through the piston... like a sound wave.. you would not be able to harness the shock wave effciently, and what you'd be left with would be a plain old heat engine. |
|
| |
Aren't the resulting gases from a nitroglycerin (or dynamite) explosion poisonous? |
|
| |
How about piezoelectric energy conversion? I like the spirit of the idea. The execution leaves something to be desired. If your going to synthesize Nitroglycerine for the purpose of extracting energy from it, then the equation doesn't work. To generate the Sulfuric and Nitric acids required to nitrate the glycerine require energy. 72% of the power in the U.S. is generated by coal, natural gas, or "dual fire". Niether coal nor natural gas consume nearly the power to "harvest" them as they have locked up inside. If they did no one would pull them out of the ground. Now if the idea is to use some existing source of shock wave producing material like expired military ordinances then theres a possibility. |
|
| |
Hey, MySoulWanders, Check out:
http://innssi.com/
I think that their work could help you a lot. I like your idea. The mogen site was interesting! Thanks for that one. WHAT I STILL WANT TO KNOW is, will your device possibly create an EMP, i couldn't tell from your discription. It sounded like a possibility, though. If an EMP is involved, your device becomes a whole lot more complicated and dangerous! Don't try it unless you know what you are doing! That could be one Heck of a computer and electronics BBQ! |
|
| |
I missed something here. As
TerranFury noted, you're using a lot of
energy to make an explosive to run a
generator to.... |
|
| |
Or do you happen to have a huge
stockpile of nitroglycerine you need to
use? |
|
| |
Incidentally, you'd do much better to
not detonate the nitroglycerine, but just
burn it like any other carbon-rich fuel.
It will release exactly the same amount
of energy but in a more amenable form. |
|
| |
TerranFury & Bespair:
1:Glycerine is a byproduct of soap production. Therefore VERY much an available source of raw material.
(Do some web research on WWII or talk to some vets who can inform you that during the war soap was rationed due to the need for the glycerine to make exsplosives)
2:Nitrogen makes up the majority of the air. They sell nitrogen extracting generators that can extract on demand the Nitrogen out of the air. |
|
| |
//They sell nitrogen extracting generators that can extract on demand the Nitrogen out of the air// By fractional distillation of liquid air, which requires huge amounts of energy. |
|
| |
AbsintheWithoutLeave: Research the new LINK . You are WRONG, It DOES NOT "requires huge amounts of energy." to get the Nitrogen gas out of the air. |
|
| |
Hmm, the spelling "tire" alerts me to a US product, and the American idea of low energy and my idea of low energy are very far apart. I note the "specification" didn't include any energy consumption figures - 13 bar air doesn't come for free, nor I suspect, do the consumeables. |
|
| |
AbsintheWithoutLeave:
It consumes the same amount of energy as any other high performance compressor based system. Still, within a very reasonable energy consumption to produce the Nitrogen needed. |
|
| |
You maybe want to take a look at the specs of the N2 generator again - FYI molar volume is as close to 1 mol /cubic foot (22.4 litres vs. 28 litres) as make little difference - and see just how little of the stuff you're actually making. (those figures are cubic feet per minute) |
|
| |
"Background info on where to get GLYCERINE: |
|
| |
The most widely used method for the production of soap involves a composite hydrolysis and neutralization reaction called saponification. The saponification of animal fats and vegetable oils also produces considerable quantities of glycerine. |
|
| |
Glycerine is an important alcohol that has a value greater than that of its coproduct soap. Glycerine is used on the manufacture of nitroglycerine, dynamite, blasting gelatin, and the smokeless powders Cordite and Ballistite. Modern wars have been essentially an exercise in the use of explosives and governments have placed a premium upon the production of glycerine. Until 1948, all glycerine was derived from the saponification of animal fats in particular. Thus, during World War II, housewives were encouraged to save all used cooking fats. Those who remember the period will also be aware of soap scarcity. |
|
| |
It cannot be overemphasized that during a period of military conflict, the use of fats for the production of explosives is of far greater significance than the laundry or toilet comfort of the population." |
|
| |
AbsintheWithoutLeave: It doesn't take alot of Nitrogen to create useable amounts of Nitroglycerine. |
|
| |
Also one could run a few Nitrogen Gens connected together if more on demand supply is needed. |
|
| |
Ah, I see, I had not realized we had
surplus glycerine. Re the nitrogen, it is
indeed abundant and fairly easily
available. Now, what do you need to do
get a relatively inert gas to react with
glycerine? And, although nitroglycerine
sounds dramatic (wow, bang, lots of
energy), does it contain any more
energy per unit mass than, say, sugar?
It sounds to me like you're putting a lot
of effort and energy into making
something that goes bang, rather than
finding a more sensible way to use
glycerine as a fuel. Numbers please? |
|
| |
"Great spirits have often encountered violent opposition from weak minds."-Albert Einstein |
|
| |
True. A lot of them have come up
against good old thermodynamics too.
I'm not saying you're wrong, just that it
looks unlikely. If you want to propose
an energy-generating scheme based on
specific chemical reactions, you ought
to be able to tell us what those
reactions are and the energies (kJ/mole)
of the steps. Then either the net result
is an output (in which case you're right)
or an input (in which case you're
wrong). So, numbers? |
|
| |
[MySoul]: Folks are being awfully patient with you. |
|
| |
/Great spirits have often encountered violent opposition from *mediocre* minds/ |
|
| |
/This is a divisional application of .... U.S. Pat....abandoned and .... filed .../ Your linked idea hasn't "recieved" a patent, it's an application for one. Patents are not proof of feasiblity. The linked idea is for pouring water into a hot hole in the ground and extracting energy from the steam. There's nothing "far more volatile" about geothermal energy. |
|
| |
As has been said, the chemical energy of nitro can be as well extracted by slower burning. The chemicals going into nitro could be combined or used in other ways. |
|
| |
If you want to make a better generator, put a long piston in a long cylinder and wrap a solenoid around the thing. |
|
| |
In auto engines "detonation" or pinging, is very bad. Diesel engines, which are designed to use detonation, are quite heavy, noisy and stinky. |
|
| |
BaconBRAIN: "/This is a divisional application of .... U.S. Pat....abandoned and .... filed .../ Your linked idea hasn't "recieved" a patent, it's an application for one. Patents are not proof of feasiblity. The linked idea is for pouring water into a hot hole in the ground and extracting energy from the steam. There's nothing "far more volatile" about geothermal energy." |
|
| |
If you FULLY read the information on the page in the link, the inital HEAT source is started using: "nuclear detonation underground". |
|
| |
NUCLEAR detonations are RADIOACTIVE therefore creating harmful residue(that last centurys). Such as volatile water, and any surrounding rock. |
|
| |
"In auto engines "detonation" or pinging, is very bad. Diesel engines, which are designed to use detonation, are quite heavy, noisy and stinky."
You must have this post confused with the other guy's posting. (see link) This one is for a stationary power generator. |
|
| |
My soul wonders if [MySoulWanders] is going to come up with the energy input/output figures. <obligatory> In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics.
BTW, my reading of the badly OCR'ed patent was that the nuke was used to excavate the cavity and expose the naturally heated rock - the heat of the explosion is just a short-term "bonus"/hindrance. |
|
| |
If we've got lots of glycerine available, fantastic, let's make use of it. It's a renewable resource, and thus can be considered carbon neutral. |
|
| |
Chemically, the energy put in / released by a set of chemical processes depends solely on what you start with and what you end up with, rather than any intermediate steps. Going from glycerine to carbon dioxide and water will release the same amount of energy whether it is just burned or whether it is made into nitroglycerine and then combusted. |
|
| |
In real terms, of course, the more processes you go through, the more energy you waste. It is therefore better to burn the glycerine directly, rather than convert it to nitroglycerine (which is unstable and can be detonated by sharp vibrations, unlike dynamite wherein the nitro is suspended in fine clay). |
|
| |
My soul wonders what "volatile water"
is, amongst many other things. |
|
| |
I wondered if there was an [m-f-d]
option based on violation of the laws of
thermodynamics. On the other hand,
many ideas here violate these laws, if
only for humourous effect. On the
other other hand, this is presumably
meant as a serious proposition, in
which case it ought to adhere at least
plausibly to physical reality. |
|
| |
One more time: numbers, please! |
|
| |
* Most high explosives operate by a chemical breakdown in their molecular structure, rather than a combustion process between fuel and oxidizer. For example, nitroglycerine has the molecular formula C3N3H5O9. Any small disturbance, such as heat or physical shock, causes it to decompose into carbon dioxide (CO2), water (H2O), nitrogen (N2), and a little excess oxygen (O2). |
|
| |
This process still involves oxidation reactions, but the oxygen is part of the molecule. In the breakdown of nitroglycerine, nitrogen-oxygen atomic bonds are replaced by far more stable carbon-oxygen, hydrogen-oxygen, and nitrogen-nitrogen bonds, with the process accompanied by a violent release of energy. |
|
| |
Note:blasting gelatin: is a combination of Gelatin and Nitroglycerine. That makes it a more easily used exsplosive. The injector would inject say a ball of said gelatin and detonated with EM pulse (either MASER/LASER) |
|
| |
What Laws of thermodynamics are you refering to that this concept supposedly violates? |
|
| |
BASEPAIR- "If you want to propose an energy-generating scheme based on specific chemical reactions, you ought to be able to tell us what those reactions are and the energies (kJ/mole) of the steps. Then either the net result is an output (in which case you're right) or an input (in which case you're wrong). So, numbers?" |
|
| |
This proposal is for the concept of the general construction theme of the generator. The "numbers" you so animately desire you can use the following to access the feasibility. |
|
| |
Potential and Relative Strength of the Explosive
The potential of an explosive is the total work that can be performed by the gas resulting from its explosion, when expanded adiabatically from its original volume, until its pressure is reduced to atmospheric pressure and its temperature to 15 ¡ãC. The potential is therefore the total quantity of heat given off at constant volume when expressed in equivalent work units and is a measure of the strength of the explosive. |
|
| |
An explosion may occur under two general conditions: the first, unconfined, as in the open air where the pressure (atmospheric) is constant; the second, confined, as in a closed chamber where the volume is constant. The same amount of heat energy is liberated in each case, but in the unconfined explosion, a certain amount is used as work energy in pushing back the surrounding air, and therefore is lost as heat. In a confined explosion, where the explosive volume is small (such as occurs in the powder chamber of a firearm), practically all the heat of explosion is conserved as useful energy. If the quantity of heat liberated at constant volume under adiabatic conditions is calculated and converted from heat units to equivalent work units, the potential or capacity for work results. |
|
| |
Qmp represents the total quantity of heat given off by a mole of explosive of 15 ¡ãC and constant pressure (atmospheric); |
|
| |
Qmv represents the total heat given off by a mole of explosive at 15 ¡ãC and constant volume; and |
|
| |
W represents the work energy expended in pushing back the surrounding air in an unconfined explosion and thus is not available as net theoretical heat; |
|
| |
Then, because of the conversion of energy to work in the constant pressure case, |
|
| |
Qmv = Qmp + W
from which the value of Qmv may be determined. Subsequently, the potential of a mole of an explosive may be calculated. Using this value, the potential for any other weight of explosive may be determined by simple proportion. |
|
| |
Using the principle of the initial and final state, and heat of formation table (resulting from experimental data), the heat released at constant pressure may be readily calculated. |
|
| |
Qfi = heat of formation of product i at constant pressure |
|
| |
Qfk = heat of formation of reactant k at constant pressure |
|
| |
v = number of moles of each product/reactants (m is the number of products and n the number of reactants) |
|
| |
The work energy expended by the gaseous products of detonation is expressed by: |
|
| |
W = P dv
With pressure constant and negligible initial volume, this expression reduces to: |
|
| |
W = P¡€V2
Since heats of formation are calculated for standard atmospheric pressure (101 325 Pa) and 15 ¡ãC, V2 is the volume occupied by the product gases under these conditions. At this point |
|
| |
W = (101 325 Pa)(23.63 l) (Nmol)/mol |
|
| |
and by applying the appropriate conversion factors, work is determined in units of kcal/mol. |
|
| |
W = (10.132 ¡Á 104 N/m2)(23.63 l)(Nmol)/mol ¡Á 4185 J/kcal ¡Á (10-3m3)/{N¡€m} |
|
| |
W = (0.572)(Nmol) kcal/mol |
|
| |
Once the chemical reaction has been balanced, one can calculate the volume of gas produced and the work of expansion. With this completed, the calculations necessary to determine potential may be accomplished. |
|
| |
C6H2(NO2)3CH3 ¡ú 6CO + 2.5H2 + 1.5N2 + C
with Nmol = 10 mol |
|
| |
Qmp = 6(26.43) - 16.5 = 142.08 kcal/mol
Note: Elements in their natural state (H2, O2, N2, C, etc.) are used as the basis for heat of formation tables and are assigned a value of zero. See table 12-2. |
|
| |
Qmv = 142.08 + 0.572(10) = 147.8 kcal/mol |
|
| |
As previously stated, Qmv converted to equivalent work units is the potential of the explosive. (MW = Molecular Weight of Explosive) |
|
| |
Potential = Qmv kcal/mol ¡Á 4185 J/kcal ¡Á 103 g/kg ¡Á 1 mol/(MW g) |
|
| |
Potential = Qmv (4.185 ¡Á 106) J/(MW kg) |
|
| |
Potential = 147.8 (4.185 ¡Á 106)/227.1 = 2.72 ¡Á 106 J/kg |
|
| |
Rather than tabulate such large numbers, in the field of explosives, TNT is taken as the standard explosive, and others are assigned strengths relative to that of TNT. The potential of TNT has been calculated above to be 2.72 ¡Á 106 J/kg. Relative strength (RS) may be expressed as |
|
| |
R.S. = Potential of Explosive/(2.72 ¡Á 106) |
|
| |
Volume of Products of Explosion
The law of Avogadro states that equal volumes of all gases under the same conditions of temperature and pressure contain the same number of molecules. From this law, it follows that the molecular volume of one gas is equal to the molecular volume of any other gas. The molecular volume of any gas at 0 ¡ãC and under normal atmospheric pressure is very nearly 22.4 liters or 22.4 cubic decimeters. Thus, considering the nitroglycerin reaction. |
|
| |
C3H5(NO3)3 ¡ú 3CO2 + 2.5H2O + 1.5N2 + .25O2
the explosion of one gram molecule of nitroglycerin produces in the gaseous state: 3 gram molecules of CO2; 2.5 gram molecules of O2. Since a molecular volume is the volume of one gram molecule of gas, one gram molecule of nitroglycerin produces 3 + 2.5 + 1.5 + .25 = 7.25 molecular volumes of gas; and these molecular volumes at 0 ¡ãC and atmospheric pressure form an actual volume of 7.25 X 22.4 = 162.4 liters of gas. (Note that the products H2O and CO2 are in their gaseous form.) |
|
| |
Based upon this simple beginning, it can be seen that the volume of the products of explosion can be predicted for any quantity of the explosive. Further, by employing Charles' Law for perfect gases, the volume of the products of explosion may also be calculated for any given temperature. This law states that at a constant pressure a perfect gas expands 1/273 of its volume at 0 ¡ãC, for each degree of rise in temperature. |
|
| |
Therefore, at 15 ¡ãC the molecular volume of any gas is, |
|
| |
V15 = 22.4 (1 + 15/273) = 23.63 liters per mol
Thus, at 15 ¡ãC the volume of gas produced by the explosive decomposition of one gram molecule of nitroglycerin becomes |
|
| |
V = 23.63 l (7.25 mol) = 171.3 liters/mol |
|
| |
[MSW] I think what everyone else is asking is (and it looks to me like you're not answering them) is that the "molecular decomposition" you googled for (though didn't quote your reference - looks like www.vectorsite.net to me) doesn't say how much energy it takes to perform the molecular composition in the first place. |
|
| |
//What Laws of thermodynamics are
you refering to that this concept
supposedly violates// well, that niggly
old one about conservation of energy. |
|
| |
Please, can we have the relevant kJ/mol
(or kcal/mol or whatever units you
want, as long as they are numerical) for: |
|
| |
a) your proposed reaction for nitrogen
with glycerine
b) the decomposition of nitroglycerine. |
|
| |
Otherwise [m-f-d] on the grounds of
simple wrongness. |
|
| |
Read and compute the numbers using the the previously posted info. |
|
| |
BTW:
This Electrical Generation proposal is for burst electrical production. High output for short times. Such as required for High powered LASER/MASER useage. |
|
| |
<patiently repeats the question>
what.... .is.... your...
.proposed..... reaction
....
.for..... making..... the..... nitro... glyceri
ne? Is it a secret process involving a
philosopher's stone? |
|
| |
Basepair-"<patiently repeats the question> what.... .is.... your... .proposed..... reaction .... .for..... making..... the..... nitro... glyceri ne? Is it a secret process involving a philosopher's stone?" |
|
| |
What is your lack of comprehension of the proposal? |
|
| |
It is a proposed use of an ALREADY AVAILABLE , industrial used exsplosive. The Nitroglycerine can be PURCHASED. For this intended use. |
|
| |
If you are going to question the validity of the concept, why dont you focus on the concept in a whole. |
|
| |
The ENERGY is transfered from the exsplosive force (input) to produce a FAST PEAK of electrical output. |
|
| |
This concept is not tring to generate energy from the chemical reaction of the heat generated within the fuel source.(that was your proposed use of the fuel) |
|
| |
BTW Your "repeat" question is a new question since you did not post the stated question prior. |
|
| |
In theory, this system would provide a huge energy burst for a short length of time, and would do so better than an IC engine utilising glycerine. No, it's not an efficient process and it would be neither cheap to run nor to build. However, it is technically feasible. For massive power bursts, I suspect that a big capacitor bank might be more effective, but I could be mistaken. |
|
| |
[MSW] Basepair would like to see the chemical equations, with amounts of energy put in and given out, for a) how you propose to react glycerine and nitrogen and b) how you expect it to decompose. Pulling the biggest general explanation of explosive theory you can find, and posting it unreferenced on here, is not a substitute for having a clue what you're talking about. |
|
| |
The idea is feasible (for one shot, at least) and would behave like a musket being fired. You'd need gas vents near the top of the travel though, or you'd require a hugely long and inefficient barrel before it came to a total stop. Also, you need to vent the barrel below the projectile and charge it with air, or the next shot won't have any oxygen for its combustion. |
|
| |
nitroglycerin C3H5(NO3)3 kJ/mol= -371.10 |
|
| |
What's that decomposing to? Molecular N2, C and O2, or carbon dioxide, nitrogen and water, or what? |
|
| |
david_scothern"-[MSW] Basepair would like to see the chemical equations, with amounts of energy put in and given out, for a) how you propose to react glycerine and nitrogen and b) how you expect it to decompose. Pulling the biggest general explanation of explosive theory you can find, and posting it unreferenced on here, is not a substitute for having a clue what you're talking about." |
|
| |
David: It is CLEAR you DONT HAVE A CLUE about Nitroglycerine. It AUTODETONATES with shock or high enough temperature. |
|
| |
//See table 12-2// Still looking for table 12-2
//Potential = Qmv (4.185 ¡Á 106) J/(MW kg) // Explain please. |
|
| |
[MSW] Yes, I know, nitroglycerine is unstable and will autodetonate, hence its being suspended in kieselguhr (a type of fine clay) to form dynamite, which is much more stable. That do ya? |
|
| |
However, that doesn't tell me what that enthalpy you posted is for. Give us the reaction scheme for which that enthalpy value is valid, and also the enthalpies of formation of nitroglycerine and its feedstocks. |
|
| |
david_scothern" [MSW] Yes, I know, nitroglycerine is unstable and will autodetonate, hence its being suspended in kieselguhr (a type of fine clay) to form dynamite, which is much more stable. That do ya?However, that doesn't tell me what that enthalpy you posted is for. Give us the reaction scheme for which that enthalpy value is valid, and also the enthalpies of formation of nitroglycerine and its feedstocks." |
|
| |
I Posted the enthalpy for the convience of those whom want that information. |
|
| |
Your arguement is still not focusing on the concept at hand. |
|
| |
Your arguement is the same as asking someone to describe the chemical composition, Ohms, etc. of an LED, in order to justify the LED being used to create a message board |
|
| |
No it isn't... I'll be honest, it's to see whether you know what you're talking about, or not. So far you've squirmed, hedged, and heckled whenever you've been asked to quantify your claims. I don't think you're as up on the technology you're discussing as some of the people who disagree with you. |
|
| |
david_scothern- "No it isn't... I'll be honest, it's to see whether you know what you're talking about, or not. So far you've squirmed, hedged, and heckled whenever you've been asked to quantify your claims. I don't think you're as up on the technology you're discussing as some of the people who disagree with you." |
|
| |
I know very well the concepts I'm talking about. The concept presented is based on the general understanding of the materials to be used to achieve the desired goal. |
|
| |
A: Proven detonateable fuel. B: Proven form of electrical creation through induction. |
|
| |
The fuel of choice is Nitroglycerine, because it is proven to provide quick detonation. |
|
| |
Your arguement is similar to having to describe the entire distillation process of raw oil to get the petrol to run a internal combustion engine that would be used to power a proposed product. |
|
| |
MySoul - As was pointed out what
seems like several volumes ago, you
can buy AA batteries and run a power
station from those, but this isn't a very
sensible idea. To quote you: |
|
| |
" A: Proven detonateable fuel. B: Proven
form of electrical creation through
induction." |
|
| |
"A" is fine - you are right.
"B" is fine - you are right.
However A+B=nonsense - you are
putting more energy into making "A"
(nitroglycerine from glycerine +
nitrogen)
than you will get from "B".
So, if we ever have an energy surplus
this will be a very useful and
entertaining way to get rid of it. |
|
| |
//Your arguement is similar to having
to describe the entire distillation
process of raw oil to get the petrol to
run a internal combustion engine that
would be used to power a proposed
product.// |
|
| |
No, it isn't. I am simply asking for one
number - the enthalpy for the net
reaction from nitrogen gas+glycerine
--> nitroglycerine. |
|
| |
Anyway, enough. Go build it if you like. |
|
| |
Basepair - you are indeed a great spirit in the Einstein sense. |
|
| |
Don't you just hate reading through a really good argument all the way to the end only to find that it's all over and you have no chance to participate? |
|
| |
god, I coulda had fun here. |
|
| |