6 ms·

Just a side note: This kind of research could help us on Earth, too. For example, some of the heat that gets wasted when you drive your car could

by struppi 10y ago

Just a side note: This kind of research could help us on Earth, too. For example, some of the heat that gets wasted when you drive your car could be reused and put back into the car to charge the battery or power electronics. I once worked for a company on software that was, among other things, used to optimize the fuel efficiency of cars. There was some talk about how using Thermoelectric Generators (TEGs) to recover the waste heat form the exhaust pipe would be really cool - But that those TEGs were too heavy, too inefficient and too expensive to make any sense in a car. So maybe, this is the breakthrough that was needed. If this technology could recover a few KW from the waste heat, this might greatly improve the fuel efficiency of cars. Or it is just some marketing talk, like, "Look, what we are researching here might be useful to YOU too"... Can somebody comment on that?

mnw21cam 10y ago
The main problem with most engines is how to cool them efficiently. These thermocouple skudderites are (according to the article) good insulators of heat, which is exactly what you do not want.
TeMPOraL 10y ago
> Or it is just some marketing talk, like, "Look, what we are researching here might be useful to YOU too"... A common question raised by many people is why spend money on space exploration when there are problems to be solved here, on Earth[0]? So NASA and many others try to address it by pointing out just how much of their work end up being used to improve life of everyone down here, on Earth. NASA in particular seems to have boosted their marketing budget recently; something I wish ESA would do too, to get more recognition and public support. Also, this is a perfect moment to link to the classic: http://wtfnasa.com/ http://wtfnasa.com/ :). -- [0] - Besides space exploration being fucking awesome, which for some reason isn't widely recognized the axiom it is.
- TranceMan 10y ago
  >Besides space exploration being fucking awesome I don't see how space exploration is feeding the starving. It would be fucking awesome if we solved that. It maybe a strawman - couldn't these millions be spent on Earth? Instead we have commercial TV asking us to donate to solve problems on Earth.
  - TeMPOraL 10y ago
    Yes, it would be. Being awesome for some (like myself) is obviously not an argument in itself; I added it as a bit of humour :). Regarding your very good question - it has been asked before. I'll direct you to the classic: In 1970, a Zambia-based nun named Sister Mary Jucunda wrote to Dr. Ernst Stuhlinger, then-associate director of science at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, in response to his ongoing research into a piloted mission to Mars. Specifically, she asked how he could suggest spending billions of dollars on such a project at a time when so many children were starving on Earth. Stuhlinger soon sent the following letter of explanation to Sister Jucunda, along with a copy of "Earthrise," the iconic photograph of Earth taken in 1968 by astronaut William Anders, from the Moon (also embedded in the transcript). His thoughtful reply was later published by NASA, and titled, "Why Explore Space?" The response is to be read here: http://www.lettersofnote.com/2012/08/why-explore-space.html http://www.lettersofnote.com/2012/08/why-explore-space.html.
    - TranceMan 10y ago
      Thanks, I have read that. It seems to have a premise that we can only feed all the people on Earth from space. Is farming really dead? When will this promise be delivered? It's been 40 years and I can imagine Billions spent. Are people still starving?.
      - Beltiras 10y ago
        Some areas in the world are in a constant state of war and strife. It's not a matter of logistics or food production. The problem is getting warlords to stop their detrimental activities.
      - the8472 10y ago
        > Is farming really dead? No, there's plenty of research to make agriculture (industrial and subsistence farming) more efficient. But it's not trivial getting it into the hands and heads of people since you can only do that locally. > It seems to have a premise that we can only feed all the people on Earth from space. No. Nasa and noaa are contributing some parts to a larger machinery. It is not the sole purpose of space missions, but it is a synergetic effect. You need weather forecasts to optimize farming, satellites help with that. GPS helps with international trade which in small part also covers shipping of fertilizer or pesticides to countries.
- valuearb 10y ago
  I'm as pro-space exploration as anyone, but the pitch we should fund NASA because it produces technologies that are beneficial on earth overlooks a crucial fact. If not working for NASA, those engineers would be working elsewhere, also on technologies that are beneficial on earth. The difference is they'd almost certainly be working in an organization that's a much smaller bureaucracy, and it's investments not driven by political patronage. There is little evidence that NASA engineers are as productive as engineers in other organizations. The majority of NASA's budget today is being wasted today on the SLS, a launch system that will be at cost at least 10x more per pound than commercial systems. Most of NASA's budget since Apollo was blown the Shuttle, the most expensive launch system in history, cost over $1.5B a launch for a cargo capacity similar to a Falcon 9 and couldn't get out of LEO. The rest was blown on the ISS so we could run questionable science experiments at a cost of only $200B+. I want to see a NASA devoted to robotic probes and it's manned missions restricted entirely to commercial launch systems. If they want 200,000 lb lift capacity, bid it out and let commercial providers step up with affordable solutions that aren't required to be built in every state and congressional district.
  - hwillis 10y ago
    >The majority of NASA's budget today is being wasted today on the SLS, a launch system that will be at cost at least 10x more per pound than commercial systems. It's the most powerful rocket ever... There are no comparable commercial systems. It has a 2.4x heavier payload than the Falcon Heavy, which also doesn't exist yet. You can't just compare the cost per pound, and even then your numbers are wrong- at 500 M$/130 MT the SLS is only 30% more expensive than the Falcon Heavy. Even if the SLS wasn't 2.4x bigger, 30% is worth it for the institutional ability to make those rockets. It's NASA, they should have the technical ability to get to space. >Most of NASA's budget since Apollo was blown the Shuttle, the most expensive launch system in history, cost over $1.5B a launch for a cargo capacity similar to a Falcon 9 and couldn't get out of LEO. Yes, the shuttle sucks, because it was a military project. It has wings because the military wanted it to. Almost every poor design choice was demanded by the military. The dream of the shuttle was relegated to work-making due to national "security" concerns. The military wanted it to land anywhere in the world, so it got wings, etc. >The rest was blown on the ISS so we could run questionable science experiments at a cost of only $200B+. ???? We have people in space and international cooperation on an unprecedented scale. Are antarctic bases "questionable"? >I want to see a NASA devoted to robotic probes and it's manned missions restricted entirely to commercial launch systems. If they want 200,000 lb lift capacity, bid it out and let commercial providers step up with affordable solutions that aren't required to be built in every state and congressional district. There is a single company that can do it cheaper than NASA, and that's spaceX. Government contracting leads to uncontrollable cost inflation 99% of the time. If you disconnect the managers from the product, bad things happen. It's only when you have companies that are actually dedicated to affordable spaceflight that better things happen. SpaceX is a glowing gem, not the norm. The norm is extreme waste and incompetence. NASA is more competent than any of its contractors with the sole, debatable exception of SpaceX. You are arguing for something on principles against and enormous mountain of evidence.
clouddrover 10y ago
The Energy Recovery System in Formula 1 cars harvests heat from the exhaust (what they call the MGU-H, Motor Generator Unit - Heat) and provides an additional 160bhp: https://www.formula1.com/en/championship/inside-f1/understanding-f1-racing/Energy_Recovery_Systems.html https://www.formula1.com/en/championship/inside-f1/understan...
- danbruc 10y ago
  But they are not thermoelectric generators, they are just electric generators attached to the turbo charger.
- xgbi 10y ago
  No, the MGU-H is incorrectly named. It gathers a bit of the turbo rotation to generate electricity (via induction) on high-speed regimes, and returns that electricity into the turbo when in acceleration (low speed regime). It is not a thermo-electric exchange, it's just kinetic, the same way the electric brake energy recovery works.
jlebrech 10y ago
so a small engine but the rest of it is a massive air cooled peltier heatsink?
mtreis86 10y ago
Some vehicles use extra fuel to keep the engine warm enough for emissions to be low. A mid-80s vw 1.6 turbo diesel won't ever warm up to running temp if left idling, they are so efficient there is very little waste heat generated. (The Diesel and Brayton cycles both 'consume' heat as part of the process.) Still, there is a need for high exhaust temps to reduce noxious gasses, so having a recovery method for that would result in some efficiency gains. This is a study on the application of heat recovery systems on IC engines: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1687814015590314 http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1687814015590314 "The maximum recuperated power for non-ideal cycle was 1515W at the point where reference engine power was 26,550W. That improves the effective engine efficiency by 5.7% from 33.97% to 35.91%."

by struppi 10y ago

mnw21cam 10y ago

The main problem with most engines is how to cool them efficiently. These thermocouple skudderites are (according to the article) good insulators of heat, which is exactly what you do not want.

TeMPOraL 10y ago

> Or it is just some marketing talk, like, "Look, what we are researching here might be useful to YOU too"... A common question raised by many people is why spend money on space exploration when there are problems to be solved here, on Earth[0]? So NASA and many others try to address it by pointing out just how much of their work end up being used to improve life of everyone down here, on Earth. NASA in particular seems to have boosted their marketing budget recently; something I wish ESA would do too, to get more recognition and public support. Also, this is a perfect moment to link to the classic: http://wtfnasa.com/ http://wtfnasa.com/ :). -- [0] - Besides space exploration being fucking awesome, which for some reason isn't widely recognized the axiom it is.

TranceMan 10y ago
>Besides space exploration being fucking awesome I don't see how space exploration is feeding the starving. It would be fucking awesome if we solved that. It maybe a strawman - couldn't these millions be spent on Earth? Instead we have commercial TV asking us to donate to solve problems on Earth.
- TeMPOraL 10y ago
  Yes, it would be. Being awesome for some (like myself) is obviously not an argument in itself; I added it as a bit of humour :). Regarding your very good question - it has been asked before. I'll direct you to the classic: In 1970, a Zambia-based nun named Sister Mary Jucunda wrote to Dr. Ernst Stuhlinger, then-associate director of science at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, in response to his ongoing research into a piloted mission to Mars. Specifically, she asked how he could suggest spending billions of dollars on such a project at a time when so many children were starving on Earth. Stuhlinger soon sent the following letter of explanation to Sister Jucunda, along with a copy of "Earthrise," the iconic photograph of Earth taken in 1968 by astronaut William Anders, from the Moon (also embedded in the transcript). His thoughtful reply was later published by NASA, and titled, "Why Explore Space?" The response is to be read here: http://www.lettersofnote.com/2012/08/why-explore-space.html http://www.lettersofnote.com/2012/08/why-explore-space.html.
  - TranceMan 10y ago
    Thanks, I have read that. It seems to have a premise that we can only feed all the people on Earth from space. Is farming really dead? When will this promise be delivered? It's been 40 years and I can imagine Billions spent. Are people still starving?.
    - Beltiras 10y ago
      Some areas in the world are in a constant state of war and strife. It's not a matter of logistics or food production. The problem is getting warlords to stop their detrimental activities.
    - the8472 10y ago
      > Is farming really dead? No, there's plenty of research to make agriculture (industrial and subsistence farming) more efficient. But it's not trivial getting it into the hands and heads of people since you can only do that locally. > It seems to have a premise that we can only feed all the people on Earth from space. No. Nasa and noaa are contributing some parts to a larger machinery. It is not the sole purpose of space missions, but it is a synergetic effect. You need weather forecasts to optimize farming, satellites help with that. GPS helps with international trade which in small part also covers shipping of fertilizer or pesticides to countries.
valuearb 10y ago
I'm as pro-space exploration as anyone, but the pitch we should fund NASA because it produces technologies that are beneficial on earth overlooks a crucial fact. If not working for NASA, those engineers would be working elsewhere, also on technologies that are beneficial on earth. The difference is they'd almost certainly be working in an organization that's a much smaller bureaucracy, and it's investments not driven by political patronage. There is little evidence that NASA engineers are as productive as engineers in other organizations. The majority of NASA's budget today is being wasted today on the SLS, a launch system that will be at cost at least 10x more per pound than commercial systems. Most of NASA's budget since Apollo was blown the Shuttle, the most expensive launch system in history, cost over $1.5B a launch for a cargo capacity similar to a Falcon 9 and couldn't get out of LEO. The rest was blown on the ISS so we could run questionable science experiments at a cost of only $200B+. I want to see a NASA devoted to robotic probes and it's manned missions restricted entirely to commercial launch systems. If they want 200,000 lb lift capacity, bid it out and let commercial providers step up with affordable solutions that aren't required to be built in every state and congressional district.
- hwillis 10y ago
  >The majority of NASA's budget today is being wasted today on the SLS, a launch system that will be at cost at least 10x more per pound than commercial systems. It's the most powerful rocket ever... There are no comparable commercial systems. It has a 2.4x heavier payload than the Falcon Heavy, which also doesn't exist yet. You can't just compare the cost per pound, and even then your numbers are wrong- at 500 M$/130 MT the SLS is only 30% more expensive than the Falcon Heavy. Even if the SLS wasn't 2.4x bigger, 30% is worth it for the institutional ability to make those rockets. It's NASA, they should have the technical ability to get to space. >Most of NASA's budget since Apollo was blown the Shuttle, the most expensive launch system in history, cost over $1.5B a launch for a cargo capacity similar to a Falcon 9 and couldn't get out of LEO. Yes, the shuttle sucks, because it was a military project. It has wings because the military wanted it to. Almost every poor design choice was demanded by the military. The dream of the shuttle was relegated to work-making due to national "security" concerns. The military wanted it to land anywhere in the world, so it got wings, etc. >The rest was blown on the ISS so we could run questionable science experiments at a cost of only $200B+. ???? We have people in space and international cooperation on an unprecedented scale. Are antarctic bases "questionable"? >I want to see a NASA devoted to robotic probes and it's manned missions restricted entirely to commercial launch systems. If they want 200,000 lb lift capacity, bid it out and let commercial providers step up with affordable solutions that aren't required to be built in every state and congressional district. There is a single company that can do it cheaper than NASA, and that's spaceX. Government contracting leads to uncontrollable cost inflation 99% of the time. If you disconnect the managers from the product, bad things happen. It's only when you have companies that are actually dedicated to affordable spaceflight that better things happen. SpaceX is a glowing gem, not the norm. The norm is extreme waste and incompetence. NASA is more competent than any of its contractors with the sole, debatable exception of SpaceX. You are arguing for something on principles against and enormous mountain of evidence.

clouddrover 10y ago

The Energy Recovery System in Formula 1 cars harvests heat from the exhaust (what they call the MGU-H, Motor Generator Unit - Heat) and provides an additional 160bhp: https://www.formula1.com/en/championship/inside-f1/understanding-f1-racing/Energy_Recovery_Systems.html https://www.formula1.com/en/championship/inside-f1/understan...

danbruc 10y ago
But they are not thermoelectric generators, they are just electric generators attached to the turbo charger.
xgbi 10y ago
No, the MGU-H is incorrectly named. It gathers a bit of the turbo rotation to generate electricity (via induction) on high-speed regimes, and returns that electricity into the turbo when in acceleration (low speed regime). It is not a thermo-electric exchange, it's just kinetic, the same way the electric brake energy recovery works.

jlebrech 10y ago

so a small engine but the rest of it is a massive air cooled peltier heatsink?

mtreis86 10y ago

Some vehicles use extra fuel to keep the engine warm enough for emissions to be low. A mid-80s vw 1.6 turbo diesel won't ever warm up to running temp if left idling, they are so efficient there is very little waste heat generated. (The Diesel and Brayton cycles both 'consume' heat as part of the process.) Still, there is a need for high exhaust temps to reduce noxious gasses, so having a recovery method for that would result in some efficiency gains. This is a study on the application of heat recovery systems on IC engines: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1687814015590314 http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1687814015590314 "The maximum recuperated power for non-ideal cycle was 1515W at the point where reference engine power was 26,550W. That improves the effective engine efficiency by 5.7% from 33.97% to 35.91%."