Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Hydrogen Turbine Consideration
Hydrogen Turbine Consideration
Hydrogen Turbine Consideration
The primary “thrust” of the proposal is the investigation of using Plug Flow Reactors (Cells) to
supply steam input to a reaction turbine. Advances in shaft seals and machining tolerances since their
time spark new interest in localized power generation techniques. It is proposed for instance, to create
shaft rotation by supplying steam input via the exhaust port of a Tesla Turbine, operating the turbine as
a Nero style Reaction Turbine. The reaction is very hot with a fast burn rate. Consequently, it is
proposed that the reaction be tempered by the injection of water that controls the rate of reaction, adds
mass to the propellant, and still produces viable “dry” steam pressure. Using the equations below the
Plug Flow Reactor and Laval nozzle concept is examined using finite element techniques that describe
its operation.
For some background for those who look up values in Chemistry Handbooks without fully
understanding their meaning, power plants have considered the use of hydrogen-oxygen combustion in
the past, but only as a “flue gas conversion” of their existing boiler designs, not in the context of
mechanical energy extracted from the Plug Flow Reactor connected to impulse or reaction turbines
needed to drive the generators directly. The efficiency of the Plug Flow Reactor reaches 90%. A
common misconception that might form is the energy output of the Plug Flow Reactor compared to
using hydrogen-oxygen combustion as a flue gas where both may be expressed in BTU’s. Compared to
the 165 BTU's normally published in combustion tables, the Plug Flow Reactor yields well over 400
BTU’s, a performance that is economically significant when evaluating the capacity to do mechanical
work in turning a “peaking power” generator or pressurize a vessel. The reactor is also intrinsically
safe or self limiting. The reaction will continue to be exothermic until it reaches a temperature that
begins to disassociate water. This disassociation of water is the limiting factor for efficiency, at which
point the “endothermic” reaction of disassociating water removes about 467 BTU's per mole. Why the
published values were low appears to go at least as far back as work done Babcock & Wilcox when
considering hydrogen-oxygen fuels for use in boiler making. In fact, the figure of 165 BTU’s is given
based upon an old calorimeter study where the temperature of water is measured after circulating
around the flue until such time as all the water vapor condenses. The Plug Flow Reactor is essentially
nearly instantaneous in delivery of kinetic energy and more efficient in design than a boiler. Although
it is reasonable to conclude that Hydrogen is a poor flue gas fuel, it is the best fuel, as theorized by
Laval, when he proved the lightest fuel is the most efficient thruster. Gustav had some success in using
1
hydrogen-oxygen combustion directly in his turbine, with the annoying problem that it ran
uncontrollably too fast. If Gustav had modern non-Newtonian electronic controllers, his problem may
have been solved as demonstrated in the mathematics that follows.
As can be seen below, the Plug Flow Reactor and Laval Nozzle are essentially made of pipe
that is about 4 feet long and only an inch or two in diameter. The design varies non-linearly with output
requirements and the geometry causes rate sensitivity. Consequently, an algorithm appears below to
make considerations and calculations easier to implement. In essence, the hotter the reaction, the
greater is the rate constant. The rate of reaction is also dependant upon the concentration of reactants.
The basics of the design follow. The basics of experimental design (not included herein) to control the
reactions follow the design.
2
a. Reaction-
H2 + 2O2 2H2O
A + 2B 2C in variable form.
3
Fa dXa = Ra dV where Ra is the rate at which conversion occurs.
Equation 1. Volume and concentration are expressed in terms of the rate of reaction, volume and
concentration.
Xc
V / Fao = dXa / -Ra
0
Recalling that A + 2B = 2C, note that the coefficients in balance equation equal the exponents
in the rate equation.
Ra = - k Ca Cb2
where C(n) is an expression for the concentration. The concentrations are expressed
accordingly.
4
Cb = Cbo – 2Cao * Xa (Cb is defined in terms of Ca where Cb is twice Ca1)
M= Cb / Ca or the concentration ratio = 2/1 or 2.
Substitution of Ra into the General Definite Integral (Equation 1) gives the basis for Analysis governing
the rates of reaction as follows:
V / Fao = 1/ 2k Cao2 [ 1/ 2(1-Xac)2 -4] and the ratio of Volume to initial feed rate of H2 can be
expressed in terms of concentration of reactants.
FAO := .5 in mol/sec
KR( T) := ( 10
22.8)
e
1
The procedures place the rate of reaction in terms of one variable to simplify the math.
5
XV( X , T) ⋅ dHR
TV( X , T) :=
CPA⋅ ( 1 − X) + CPB⋅ ( 1 − X) + CPC⋅ X
EulersX( DV, n ) := X ←0
0
T ← 300
0
for i ∈ 1 .. n
X1 ← X
i−1
+ XV X ( i− 1
,T
i− 1 ) ⋅ DV
T1 ← T
i− 1
+ TV X ( i−1
,T
i− 1) ⋅ DV
XV( X1, T1) + XV( Xi−1 , Ti−1)
X2 ← X + ⋅ DV
i−1 2
T2 ← T
+
TV( X1, T1) + TV ( i−1 i−1) ⋅ DV
X , T
i− 1 2
X ← X2
i
T ← T2
i
X
EulersT( DV, n ) := X ←0
0
T ← 300
0
for i ∈ 1 .. n
X1 ← X
i−1
+ XV X ( i− 1
,T
i−1 ) ⋅ DV
T1 ← T
i−1
+ TV X ( i−1
,T
i−1 ) ⋅DV
XV( X1, T1) + XV( Xi−1 , Ti−1)
X2 ← X
i−1
+ ⋅ DV
2
TV( X1, T1) + TV( Xi− 1 , Ti−1)
T2 ← T + ⋅ DV
i−1
2
X ← X2
i
T ← T2
i
T
6
EulersV( DV, n ) := X ←0
0
V ←0
0
T ← 300
0
for i ∈ 1 .. n
X1 ← X
i−1
+ XV X ( i− 1
,T
i−1 ) ⋅ DV
T1 ← T
i−1
+ TV X ( i−1
,T
i−1 ) ⋅DV
XV( X1 , T1) + XV( Xi−1 , Ti−1)
X2 ← X + ⋅ DV
i−1 2
T2 ← T
+
TV( X1 , T1) + TV ( i−1 i−1) ⋅DV
X , T
i−1 2
X ← X2
i
T ← T2
i
V ← DV⋅ i
i
V
7
Set the Differential Volume and the Number of steps
DV := .01
n := 5000
Conversion := EulersX( DV, n )
Temperature := EulersT( DV, n ) 3 Final Temperature in K
Temperature = 6.598× 10
Volume:= EulersV( DV, n ) n
5
Heat = 4.974× 10 Total Heat Generated in J
n
CAO
Time:= Volume⋅
FAO
Conversion vs Volume(L)
0.8
0.6
Conversion
0.4
0.2
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Volume
T em perature(K) vs T im e(sec)
8000
6000
Temperature
4000
2000
8
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Time
Temperature(K) vs Volume(L)
8000
6000
Temperature
4000
2000
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Volume
Conversion vs Time(sec)
0.8
0.6
Conversion
0.4
0.2
9
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Time
3. Equations governing the Laval Nozzle should a “cell” be desired over charging the space between
the space between the Mineshield@ and the Test Enclosure,
The association of the Laval Nozzle to the Plug Flow Reactor requires basic knowledge of the
Laval nozzle in order to match the two components. The sizing of the two components begins with and is
limited by the work required to be performed by the Laval Nozzle. The force generated (thrust) is given
by the following equation. What follows is calculations need to match the two components.
F = q * Ve + (Pe – Pa) * Ae
10
Ve = Velocity of exhaust gas (m/sec)
Pe = Pressure at exhaust exit (mPa) [(Pe-Pa) * Ae = Pressure thrust]
Pa = Ambient Pressure (mPa)
Ae = Area of nozzle exit (m2)
As the nozzle area goes from “under extended” to “over extended,” momentum thrust will increase
as Ve increases, and pressure thrust decreases as Pe decreases. The increase in momentum thrust is
greater than pressure thrust, thus total thrust increases as Pe = Pa. Thus, Ve is inversely
proportional to Pe; [q * Ve] is inversely proportional to [(Pe - Pa) * Ae]; and maximum thrust
occurs when Pe = Pa.
The problem of balanced reaction in the Plug Flow Reactor and optimal thrust in the Laval Nozzle is not
altogether simple, but manageable as Ve, Pe, Pa and Ae are presented below.
The gas pressure and temperature at the nozzle is less than the combustion chamber due to the
loss in thermal energy in accelerating the gas to the local speed of sound in the nozzle throat. If it weren’t
for this gradient, the Plug Flow Reactor may “plug” thermally as opposed to “flow” thermally. (The
proportionality constant (k) used below k is the specific heat ratio at constant volume and constant
pressure and not as used in reaction rates above.)
c. Mach Number
The gasses must be expanded in the diverging section of the nozzle to achieve maximum thrust.
The Mach number Nm at which this occurs is given by:
11
Nm2 = [ 2 / (k-1)] * [(Pc/Pa) (k-1)/k -1]
If you use this equation, be sure to take the square root of the result also before determining nozzle
exit area.
The nozzle exit area corresponding to the required Mach number in order to achieve proper
expansion is given by:
Conclusion:
If you got this far in your reading and understanding of the process, two things may be intuitively
obvious. First, all that is needed for the cell to pressurize the container is first to quantify the force
required, [F = q * Ve + (Pe – Pa) * Ae], that is satisfied via Laval Nozzle components using the equations
for the Plug Flow Reactor. Secondly, in addition to pressurization is the requirement of temperature
testing. The time at which pressurization takes place based upon rate of chemical reaction is well
described, but the reaction must go significantly longer (seconds as opposed to millisecond) to reach the
temperatures prescribed in other tests within a certain time frame. Simply put, more mass of reactants are
required, so the Plug Flow Reactor/Laval Rocket will run significantly longer than just the pressurization
time. It is a simple matter of controlling over pressurization by the use of blow out plugs and flow rate
designs of the atmospheric stand pipe manifolds while the exothermic reaction generates the required heat
in the required time. Consequently, it is possible to combine both tests in one operation.
12