----- Original Message ----- From: "Frederick Sparber" Yes. That Microwave lawnmower thing brings up some memories... Did Bill B finally determine that there was nothing to it at all?
Indeed, microwaves would be the preferred method of decomposition of NOx, and is why I added "RF" to the previous speculation, but I can find no reference to this actually working in practice, whereas many NOx fuel/energy carriers are definitely subject to rapid photo-decomposition. Anyway, the whole thing which is radically different here is in combining what is technically a *split Carnot* situation into a *boosted Carnot* situation. With a cryo-liquid fuel, as occurs in the *split Carnot* situation such as with LN, where the compression losses take place under controlled and minimized conditions when the fuel is manufactured, not when it is used... therefore the expansion half-cycle itself is extremely efficient (at least double). But we are suggesting going a step beyond. ... instead of that split-situation, we now have a boosted split cycle situation where the fuel itself contains some chemical energy, and this can push the "effective" Carnot efficiency as seen at the final stage near 100% - the "effective" part being that we are referring only that part of the cycle which is witnessed in the vehicle itself, and not the total system. IOW most of the energy content of the fuel itself can be used, as compared to 20-25% with gasoline - because this _usage-half-cycle_ is balanced out by the manufacturing process half-cycle, where losses are elsewhere and are provided by off-peak nuclear or wind energy. The "manufacture" part of the *split Carnot* situation is ALL loss; so the net efficiency of this situations not that unusual - at most 40% efficiency - but from the perspective of the driver, in being able to use a much smaller and **uncooled** engine, especially in a hybrid, which provides its own air conditioning as well, the advantages are multiplied ever further. If you have improved batteries and a small uncooled 2-cycle engine (weighing 50 pounds even with the generator) to keep the batteries trickle charged, then this can be a very lightweight long range vehicle... EXCEPT...it would require a fair amount of cryo-liquid in an insulated tank. (and does not make much sense for Alaska where you need the excess heat, nor where non-CO2 night-time energy is not available). Again, it would make zero sense unless the electricity used to manufacture the nitrous-based cryo-mix is off-peak energy - coming from nuclear/wind and preformed when it would otherwise be wasted (which is what off-peak refers to). However, another thought. The engine at this stage, probably benefits greatly from a small boost of adding a liquid carbon fuel into the mix (butane, or methane). This can be done at little risk of explosion as there is no volatility problem at minus 50-150 or so. But... I am wondering about eliminating all carbon. H2 cannot be added as it liquefies at too low a temp, and would be an explosion risk. Are there non-carbon alternatives? How stable would ammonia or a like-compound be... or should I ask, is there any ammonia-based liquids which are stable in liquid nitrous oxide at say minus 50 degrees, and not a great risk in the event of an accident? We probably need to have single liquid fuel/oxidizer mix instead of two separate tanks, for a variety of reasons. Jones
