MIT's Millimeter Turbine to be Ready This Year 197
Iddo Genuth writes "After a decade of work, the first
millimeter size turbine engine developed by researchers at MIT should become operational by the end of this summer. The new turbine engine will allow the creation of smaller and more powerful batteries than anything currently in existence. It might also serve as the basis for tiny powerful motors with applications ranging from micro UAVs to children's toys. In the more distant future huge arrays of hydrogen fueled millimeter turbine engines could even be the basis for clean, quiet and cost effective power plants."
Clean Power Plants? (Score:5, Insightful)
WTF? Where's the hydrogen coming from? May as well say In the more distant future huge arrays of kitten engines could even be the basis for clean, quiet and cost effective power plants."
Well, it could be!
Re:Clean Power Plants? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Clean Power Plants? (Score:4, Insightful)
From clean nuclear plants that require no mining, enrichment, hazardous waste disposal, have no concrete and so thus have no carbon dioxide impact and work far better than the tweaked 1950s dinosuars which are the only tested designs you could get built over the course of the next few years.
Methane from kittens would be almost as difficult to organise.
The proposal to "kickstart" the hydrogen economy consists of bizzare stuff like getting the hydrogen from methane - bizzare because methane is easier to ship, store and use and could come from biological sources (not just kittens) or from coalbeds.
These turbines sound fantastic in very small situations and it appears a journo is missing the point by wondering what big arrays would do and setting up for dissappointment.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Clean Power Plants? (Score:5, Funny)
Even a thousand whispers can get pretty loud
I beg to differ. Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] lists the sound pressure level of a whisper at 20 dBs. To calculate the sound of a thousand people whispering, we need to do 20 times log10(ratio). The ratio is 1000 whispers to one. log10 of 1000 is 3, so the SPL level of a thousand people whispering is only 3 time 20, or 60 dBs.
However, though wikipedia does not state at what distance the SPL level of a whisper was measured, usually we would imagine that it would be a person standing right next to us, or certainly within a meter. Clearly you cannot have a thousand people standing right next to you. Even within a meter of you, considering perhaps two people per square meter including yourself, within a circle of a one meter radius you have only about 3 square meters - room for 5 people besides yourself at the centre. To accommodate a thousand people, you would need a circle with a radius of over twelve meters. Most of those people are going to be at least 6 meters away from you. Wikipedia says "Note that the SPL emitted by an object changes with distance d from the object with 1/d.", so that implies that well over half of these people only contribute a fraction of their potential to the total sound level.
Beyond that, we have all these whispers generating an incoherent pattern of sound waves, sometimes reinforcing each other, and sometimes cancelling each other out, such that by the time this reaches your ears it has only a fraction of the energy that it would posses if everybody whispered in absolutely perfect unison, offset by their distance from you. In the end, the total SPL level is beyond my capability to calculate, but I would just guess that on a practical level it would not reach the level of a normal conversation between two people.
Now, if you want to hear something loud, consider the sound of a thousand hands clapping. Going by the previous example, it is easy to calculate. We begin with an estimate of the sound pressure level of one hand clapping... Oh oh...
Re: (Score:2)
Well done, bravo, and all that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There is also a perfectly good methane distribution system in many parts of the world. Which even supplys the fuel direct to buildings. The only thing apparently lacking is bottled methane for easy use in vehicles. Though no doubt many existing fuel stations cou
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually, extracting hydrogen gas from methane isn't bizarre at all. In fact, using a process known as steam reformation, it is the preferred way of producing hydrogen gas for industrial use because it is more economical than electrolysis. The industrial gas companies (BOC, Linde, APT) all use steam reformation to produce hydrogen.
The only problem with converting methane into hydrogen gas is the same problem you have when you burn methane. It produces carbon dioxide.
The key point to remember about hy
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fusion occurs in stars, H-bombs, and an infinitessimal quantity in man-made reactors. All fossil fuels on earth are stored fusion energy. Solar is obviously captured fusion energy. Wind is solar energy working on the atmosphere. Wave energy is wind energy distributed to the water.
Tidal energy comes from the moon's kinetic energy, which is the earth's gravitational attraction of the moon.
And nuclear fission is the controlled release of a little bit
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
maybe you should see "who killed the electric car" electric cars are very viable to bring to the market http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSBykAngDpY [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If that were the case, how come open source electric cars do not rule the streets?
Do you own one?
Do you think that GM is the only company that can product an electric car?
Re: (Score:2)
Frankly I will buy GM's story about there being little demand for the EV. I still think it's horrible to take them away from the EV drivers who are happy with them, but it is true that there are liability issues.
It's not that hard to build an electric car, but the hard part is finding a suitably lightweight vehicle that isn't a horrendous shitbox. You can use a VW beetle, or a little fiat or something, but frankly those are deathtraps. What we need is a fully engineered modern vehicle with a well-design
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I don't even want to think about the litter box.
Re: (Score:2)
Here in Vermont we have several farms getting milk from their cows, and generating power from their "litter box." Fun thing is, once the manure comes out of the litter box after having done the methane thing, it's even *better* for fertilizing fields than the "untreated" variety.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Mr. Fusion!
KFG
Re: (Score:2)
Good point. Also kudos to the person advocating nuclear power, we definitely need to bump our nuclear electricity percentage above 50% (preferably far above).
As to "huge arrays of hydrogen fueled millimeter turbine engines", various square/cube issues would seem to make the idea a non-starter. Larger turbines should be far more efficient, not to mention easier to make.
Re: (Score:2)
There are rather easier fuels to obtain e.g. methane.
Gas turbines don't tend to be too fussed about their fuel. Especially when not subject to the rather extreme environment of aircraft in flight.
May as well say In the more distant future huge arrays of kitten engines could even be the basis for clean, quiet and cost effective power plants."
Or even one based on "hamster engines". Maybe a hamster/kitten "hybrid" would be better. At least until the kittens got bored with
Hydrogen (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So imagine having a dozen of these things sitting around and waiting to use. Maybe one for the ipod, one to charge the cell phone, One or two for the laptop and of course, a couple on some flashlights. The powe goes out and you snapp them off, conect them to some pannel and yo
Re: (Score:2)
By the way, this might be similar with the oil tanker situation - using a one 300,000
Dare I say it? A cluster?.. (Score:5, Funny)
Imagine a, oh, whatever, cluster of these!..
Re: (Score:2)
I'm obligated to ask the following:
Huge arrays? (Score:5, Interesting)
Or am I missing something completely fundamental about the ones MIT's made here?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's an interseting point. Perhaps the advantage is localised generation rather than isolated power stations. Perhaps they will be used in individual PCs, laptops, etc instead of batteries. I don't get how increasing the friction of a large scale system will increase it's efficiency, and I don't really get where the hydrogen comes from either.
I'd be a lot more exceited about artificial photosynthesis
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yep... (Score:5, Interesting)
The thermal efficiency is the real killer - according to this post [greencarcongress.com], the expected thermal efficency is somewhere between 3 and 8%.
That's problematic for two reasons - one, a plant made of thousands of these would use way more fuel than one using a conventional piston engine and one generator, and, two, for small-scale apps it means you end up with a massive pile of waste heat to dispose of. As somebody put it - if you want 10 watts of power, that means 100 watts of waste heat to dispose of. Go put your fingers on a 100-watt lightbulb to get an idea of how much heat we're talking about...
Re:Yep... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Yep... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You replying to the burning your finger thread tipped me off.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I have an issue with dealing with heat here. Since almost everything must deal with dissipating heat, why can't someone invent something that collect the heat and re-use it to generate even more power? Everyone is putting a lot of genius into all kinds of methods to dissipate
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The energy generated by a heat engine is determined by the difference between the heat source and the heat sink. In other words
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
But i think he is suggesting doing this in combination with existing devices that generate heat like a computer's processor or somthing. then instead of letting the heat disapate into the air, It could create power to help supply the device.
O
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A few reasons (off the top of my head)...
You need very high temperature differences to get any reasonable amount of usable energy. This precludes most heat sources, because the difference is small.
If you try to get something to put out higher temperature waste, you adversely affect the operation of that device. Whether it's computers or air conditioner
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Yep... (Score:4, Informative)
Because of a little thing called the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Basically, if you use the waste heat to generate energy, you do so by exploiting the difference between the heat (probably stored in a medium that doesn't dissipate heat easily) and something else that's cold -- this makes the cold thing warm at the same time your heat storage medium cools down. Eventually, everything in your system reaches a uniform temperature, and the fat lady sings.
If the universe is a closed system... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death/ [wikipedia.org]
More about the Second Law, including math and quotable quotes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Now the maximum temperature allowed for this procesor is 65C (that's 149F, according to Google), or 338K. Now let's assume that it's in a room with 18C (64.4F, according to Google), or 291K. Now let's assume you attach an ideal heat engine to your Athlon 64 (i.e. a heat engine which converts as
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Some laptops can be bad enough when it comes to heat output just on conventional battery power. So who's going to be the first to make one with an EGT guage?
What about coils/magnets? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're not the one missing something.
Re: (Score:2)
First practial use? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:First practical use? (Score:2)
What about our small neighbors? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
DANGER! Keep flagella away from spinning blades!
Mr. Turbine is NOT your friend!
Re:Seriously?!?! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes that's right the animal rights nuts decided it would be cruel to the maggot. Any day now I expect to see a 'save the maggots' movement.
Pretty hefty hype there... (Score:4, Funny)
Yeah, it COULD revolutionize the whole world as we know it and make the Jetsons' lifestyle seem antiquated, OR...
A toy company puts out a few gimmick Pokemon-tied concept toys long after the end of the Pokemon marketing age, and nobody buys them. Despite the technological benefits of using the power components, the company management gets a sour taste of market performance and buries the whole thing under ten feet of peat and recycles them as firelighters. The technology is not used by other companies for a couple of extra decades because of the patents and other intellectual property entanglements. It is finally redeemed and used in an inadequately-explained Elvis-Presley-tied concept doohickey comes out in 2040 and sells from a Hammacher Schlemmer catalogue for $20K but only if ordered from the seat pocket from LEO during a Virgin Galactic flight.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Moo (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Moo (Score:5, Informative)
Millimeter Turbins? Must be for really small Muslims.
Turbans are worn by Sikhs, not Muslims.
Turbans are worn by Sikhs AND Muslims. (Score:4, Informative)
Gah! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just like an electronic battery is an array of electrochemical cells for generating electricity, the matrix held an array of people for some vague use not actually related to power generation (they had "a new form of fusion power" for that). The characters however (Morpheus specifically), believed it was for power but Morpheus is an unreliable narrator [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They look like Norelco shaver blades (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Size matters (Score:3)
--
1000 W/m^2 http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
A progressive achievement (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Something about the numbers doesn't add up... (Score:5, Interesting)
He says that he expects the initial products to be about 500-700 Watt-Hours/kg. and to, potentially, go as high as 1200-1500 Watt-Hours/kg. in the distant future.
My understanding is that this thing is supposed to run off of Hydrogen. It'd almost have, to as many consumer electronics are run indoors and most other fuels I know about give off toxic fumes when used in combustion engines.
Hydrogen has an energy density of ~33.3 Watt-Hours/kg. ( http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2005/MichelleFung.s html/ [hypertextbook.com] )
Now, assuming that the weight of the turbine (~4mm square) and packaging is negligible, most of the weight is fuel. In that case, we are looking at an efficiency of 1.5% - 2.1% for the initial models and 3.6% - 4.5% for the extreme upper end of what this guy thinks is foreseeable with this technology. 1.5% - 4.5% efficiency? That's horrible! Remember, pure hydrogen doesn't exist naturally on this planet. You had to spend large amounts of energy in the first place to produce the hydrogen that will be stored in these batteries (how exactly they plan on storing it I don't know because even the best, present day, techniques leak like a sieve because of the extremely small size of the hydrogen molecule).
Don't get me wrong, I can see where people would want something like this. The potential energy density compared to the compact form factor would open up new possibilities for portable equipment. There in lies the problem. The instant gratification of this technology will be almost impossible to fight. If every piece of small electronics had this kind of power source, cell phones, PDAs, laptops, etc. would become leaps-and-bounds more powerful and, at the same time, would be consuming energy at, potential, an exponentially higher rate.
The only way I can see this not becoming ubiquitous is if some other technology, like batteries, beats it to that energy density level. I don't think that's likely to happen because, even at these miserable efficiency rates, liquid fuels still have a massive lead in energy density over even the most promising, potential, battery technology known.
I hope there is an error in my math. Another possibility is that, as is so often the case, the author of the article doesn't have a clue of what he's talking about and had warped the facts of the story. The fact that he has suggested the possibility of replacing full-sized power plants with massive arrays of these turbines gives me hope that that's the case. If any of you have a correction for my math, please let me know.
-GameMaster
Re: (Score:2)
Since fuel cells don't depend of delta T,
Re: (Score:2)
Everything I've ever heard about turbine engines suggests that the smaller they get the less efficient they are. The efficiency numbers are completely in the realm I can believe based on that. I guess I was hoping that someone would find a mistake to suggest that the efficiency wasn't quite that bad. One pot
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Steam is quite nasty when hot. Also if you are burning in air you need to be careful about nitrogen and oxygen reacting...
UAV? (Score:2)
I want one (Score:2)
Oh its UAVs... thats a shame!
Micro Machines! (Score:2)
Hey, anyone here have Micro Machines [wikipedia.org] as a kid? Imagine having a Micro Machine jet with real working engines.
Re: (Score:2)
-Lasse
Violins! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, Er, Um: No, No, and No (Score:2)
So n
microgenerators (Score:3, Interesting)
This link also covers the effort reported in the present post. Your comment on the efficiency of the proposed turbine anticipates some comments here. http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=130810 &cid=10918320 [slashdot.org].
It was one of Bucky Fuller's favorite things to point out that heat management becomes easier with scale since the ratio of surface area (where heat escapes)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, that's another problem with this turbine-- how do you generate hot gas for it? There's a certain minimum size for a flame-- any smaller and the surface area
Re: (Score:2)
--
Solar, its simply better: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user s -selling-solar.html [blogspot.com]
Genie's Turbines (Score:2)
If I rotate the milliturbines backwards, will it get lighter, until the battery weighs nothing?
And can I move the turbines off the power the battery produces?
The Diamond Age? (Score:2)
The Diamond Age? =)
Info on IHI Dynajet 2.6 genset mentioned in OP (Score:3, Interesting)
Product PDF :: http://www.ihi.co.jp/ihi/file/technologygihou2/100 04_6.pdf [ihi.co.jp]
which mentions this interesting phrase:
FromInterestigly enough.... (Score:2)
Based on other experimenter's test results with direct combustion and the Tesla configuration, we should expect our overall fuel to shaft efficiency to come in around 31% -- placing our design right between gas piston and diesel piston efficiencies.
Wouldn't it be interesting if MIT engineered a bladeless turbin at
Re:Wow, really?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
But, just for fun (since I can't remember), which law of thermodynamics does the production of power violate?
I'm looking at 'em, but I can't find a law of conservation of power. I'm sure that's the one you meant, though, right.
Hmm... I guess I'm going to have to walk to work tomorrow. My car is currently sitting in the driveway producing no power (since none of it's components are doing any work at all), and thanks to xaxxon's newly discovered law of conservation of power, that means it isn't going to be producing power in the future, since it's previous means of doing so was by using stored energy rather than any form of power.
Incidentally, I think I'm going to have to cut this post short. I imagine it's not going to be too long before somebody realizes that computers have nonconstant power systems and it stops working. I just pray nobody gets around to doing the same to all life on this planet.
Re: (Score:2)