Coal electricity

[Anonymous No.2520244]

Are their any setups for a home coal generator that people use? Most youtube videos only show coal used in an industrial setting or for heat

[Anonymous No.2520251]

>>2520244
No, turbines are really expensive. The best you can do is a Stirling engine (which you have to buy unless you have an industrial CNC at home). There are Stirling engine central heating units equipped with small generators as well. They're not cheap, obviously, but at least vaguely affordable.

[Anonymous No.2520261]

>>2520244
Ir you're gonna burn fossil fuels why not a gas generator?

[Anonymous No.2520272]

>>2520251
>which you have to buy unless you have an industrial CNC
mfw zoomers need computers to make things that were invented in 19th century

[Anonymous No.2520273]

>>2520272
If you want to make something that kind of works for a while and produces a couple watts, you can definitely nigger rig it. If you want something that will work for decades and can manage kilowatts of output, it's probably going to need a decent level of planning and manufacturing quality.

[Anonymous No.2520298]

>>2520244
Pretty easy, just build a fire brick enclosure outside your house. Use a length of copper brakeline to create a coil inside the fire pit, then route one end of the open line inside through a window and fit a gravity fed water system , or pumped system to the other end, then sit back and enjoy the joy of live steam percolating around your house all winter long .

[Anonymous No.2520304]

>>2520272
The average person in the 19th century couldn't build a turbine.

[Anonymous No.2520512]

>>2520304
They literally had classes for this during the great depression. Today's kids are too interested in their smartphones to learn how to do this stuff.

[Anonymous No.2520514]

Coal covers everything in soot. If you want a unique way to heat your home then recycled motor oil burners are becoming popular.

[Anonymous No.2520642]

Propane is your off grid fossil fuel.

Kinda expensive, is what it is. Thermostat powered by pilot lite is clutch tho. There are diesel drip stoves out there.

[Anonymous No.2520651]

>>2520642
I just think it's cool for at least one or two people to have projects you can look at just to see how it's done, even if it's not really efficient or outdated

[Anonymous No.2520658]

>>2520251
I hate poachers

>>2520251
>>2520304
>attach blades to a rod and spin it
>"but turbines are really expensive bro"
>"The average person in the 19th century couldn't build a turbine."

>>2520272
kek

>>2520273
Or use a Quasiturbine rotary engine with a flexible stator. It would require the same amount of tools the first Watt engines used, but would seal better. Not that a precisely built Stirling engine would be efficient without ceramics to begin with.

>>2520514
>freeze until you have to change your oil or
>remind your neighbors that their car is due for an oil change
Or just burn everything in one catch all engine.

[Anonymous No.2520680]

>>2520244
unless you find a way to make liquid or gas fuel from coal to run an ICE it's simply not going to happen unless you have a few 100k to spare.
>just /diy/ a turbine bro, only need to hook it up to a generator and that to the grid and you're good
'no'

[Anonymous No.2520690]

>>2520680
coal worked for a speeding locomotive why not your lamp?

[Anonymous No.2520706]

>>2520690
actually saw an eastern euro on here who had a functional piston steam engine he used to power some shit, but didn't convert the mechanical energy into electricity, just used it to run a belt
getting reliable eletricity out of something like that is going to take a lot of time and a lot of effort, but at least it's not as delusional as /diy/ing your own turbines
it is was up to me i'd ditch the coal and gassify some wood.

[Anonymous No.2520758]

>>2520658
>RuneScape magic logs as fuel
Based

[Anonymous No.2520801]

>>2520680
You can make town gas from coal.
>>just /diy/ a turbine bro, only need to hook it up to a generator and that to the grid and you're good
>no
You know you want to try blackface.

[Anonymous No.2520839]

Coal doesn't even need to be gasified to power an ICE. You can run a diesel engine directly off of coal-water slurry.

[Anonymous No.2520843]

>>2520244
just use LP for your fuel source, retard. cheap, lasts decades, available everywhere

[Anonymous No.2520891]

>>2520512
>They literally had classes for this during the great depression
tourist here can you link me to this i would gladly learn about buliding turbine

[Anonymous No.2520903]

>>2520273
I'm not a great machinist but I feel like I could cut a 25W turbine at least without
CNC

[Anonymous No.2520951]

>>2520658
>jews as fuel
It's not even a YLYL thread and I lost.

[Anonymous No.2521037]

>>2520512
They did not, lol, you fucking spastic.

[Anonymous No.2521049]

>>2520839
>You can run a diesel engine directly off of coal-water slurry.
Water and fire don't mix. You could run diesel off of liquid water alone with a high enough compression ratio. Basically, a swamp cooler engine that makes power turning warm dry air into cool moist air. Another possibility is a coal-oil slurry in a 6-stroke diesel with water injection.

>>2520843
Where do I find LP post collapse?

[Anonymous No.2521056]

It's simply not worth it. The capital costs, space and time required to make this work are astronomical. If the goal is not to make a political statement but save money, just lower your electrical consumption, as you would anyway with your shitty generator.

Coal heating is possibly worth it if you live somewhere you can get coal cheaply, there's no natural gas around, winters are cold, you need heating 24/7 and don't leave the house for more than 12-15h at a time. But it takes money to make the installation, and you need to keep an eye out constantly to make sure it doesn't go out, get the ash sorted etc.

[Anonymous No.2521147]

>>2521049
Crack oil from plants like algae.

[Anonymous No.2521249]

>Coal heating is possibly worth it if you live somewhere you can get coal cheaply, there's no natural gas around, winters are cold, you need heating 24/7 and don't leave the house for more than 12-15h at a time.
> But it takes money to make the installation, and you need to keep an eye out constantly to make sure it doesn't go out, get the ash sorted etc.

Bullshit. I have a central heating coal boiler with automatic feed like pic related, and I only need to fill the hopper and clean the ash every three days or so. The electronic controller takes care of the rest. Its not the 19th century anymore anon.

>>2520273
>>2520272
>>2520261
>>2520251
>>2520244
>>2520658
>>2520706

As for the anons discussing the steam engine idea, look into small reciprocating steam engines and how the guys who run steamboats make their setups. Its an expensive hobby but you can find a small steam engine on ebay, 1 or 2 HP from time to time. The boiler is a bigger problem, that you need to treat seriously. But it is doable for a competent hobbyist. At sizes this small a reciprocating engine will be more efficient than a turbine.

[Anonymous No.2521255]

>>2520261
he wants to use the dirtiest fuel source and shit up his neighborhood to own the libs or something

[Anonymous No.2521266]

>>2521249
Steam is inefficient without high pressures, and high pressure steam is either dangerous (boiler) or expensive (steam generator). If your goal is to burn coal to produce power, there are simpler, safer, and more efficient ways to do it. You can always add a steam engine or water injection for cooling and as a waste heat recovery option later.

>>2521255
Coal isn't dirty if you do it right. There's no soot with a clean burn and ash can be caught in a separator. What's wrong with owning libs?

[Anonymous No.2521273]

>>2521266
And what are those ways?

[Anonymous No.2521296]

>>2521266
watertube boilers are simple and cheap to make and aren't a potential bomb like the boilers of the old days

[Anonymous No.2521299]

>>2521249
>At sizes this small a reciprocating engine will be more efficient than a turbine.
An atmospheric steam engine is 10-15% efficient whereas a gas turbines get around 20%-30% (1-2 bars gauge pressure). I'd guess the two are about equivalent in terms safety. Large steam turbines in power plants get 55% efficiency, but they are using pressures of 100 bars.

>>2521273
Turbine engines run off the Brayton cycle (see picrel >>2520658) which basically compresses the air and fuel in a static combustion chamber which could be loaded with solid fuels without a problem. Solids in a typical Otto (gas) or Diesel engine would bend the connecting rods among other issues. However, pistons could still replace the compressor and turbine in a gas turbine engine to achieve higher pressures, and thus run more efficiently. Another possibility is to have an Otto or Diesel engine where the cylinder is connected via the cylinder head to a separate combustion chamber for the coal, but the chamber's volume would negatively affect the compression ratio. Thus an engine running coal would be significantly larger than an engine running off liquid fuels for the same efficiency (but also more powerful).

>>2521296
But they're less efficient or they risk melting the exterior walls. At the end of the day, turbine is simpler.

[Anonymous No.2521300]

>>2520244
Have you considered wood gas? I'm not very familiar with the process but car engine can be ran with it

[Anonymous No.2521301]

>>2521300
Looks complicated

[Anonymous No.2521308]

>>2521301
I don't think so. You can see a lot of old b&w pictures of homemade wood gas generators attached to cars. Why couln't you make one with access to tutorials and videos in internet?

[Anonymous No.2521313]

>>2521299
have you ever considered the fact that it is a lot (lot lot lot) easier to compress water to high pressures and convert that into steam than having a billion compressor stages that requires a lot of work to compress a gas and is vastly more complex?
it's almost like there's a reason power plants use steam as a medium.

[Anonymous No.2521330]

Just make a steam engine

[Anonymous No.2521335]

>>2521308
It's still complicated compared to a turbine. Probably just as efficient though maybe less because already half the energy is lost converting coal to CO. There's also the risk of CO poisoning. For about the same material, you could build the turbine's combustion chamber. There's also risk of that material will corrode from acid attack.

However, I don't think turbines and gasifiers are mutually exclusive. You could use a turbocharger to pressurize the gasifier. The Brayton cycle makes power by heating under pressure, so some of the heat of pyrolysis would make power that would otherwise be wasted at atmospheric pressure.

>>2521313
>having a billion compressor stages that requires a lot of work to compress a gas and is vastly more complex?
I do admit for compression is a complexity of air breathing engines. However, compression can be also done with a piston. Likewise, it is possible to recuperate almost all that work with a turbine or expander piston.

>it's almost like there's a reason power plants use steam as a medium.
At the end of the day, I want an engine I don't have to babysit. Steam engines require too much babysitting, hence why they're only viable for plants where a dedicated slave ensures nothing melts or blows up.

>>2521330
No

[Anonymous No.2521339]

>>2521313
>a billion compressor stages
I forgot to mention. Radial compressors can generate more pressure than axial compressors. So a single stage radial compressor is sufficient.

[Anonymous No.2521345]

>>2521335
were you never taught in highschool that force times displacement equals energy?
compressing a gas requires a lot more work than compressing a liquid. and compressing a liquid to very high pressures at a high flow rate is almost trivial while doing the same with a gas, not so much.
and then there's the issue of feeding the combustion gasses directly into the turbine where you going to need very precise and very heat resistant, preferably mono-crystaline blades so they don't get shredded after 5 minutes of operation.
>So a single stage radial compressor is sufficient.
lol. lmao even. yeah if you're happy with an almost non-existant efficiency maybe. might as well skip the compression-expansion stage and feed the exhaust directly into a waterpipe steam generator
if you like turbines so much then why aren't you shilling for steam impulse turbines? they're simple as fuck and very easy to construct.

[Anonymous No.2521373]

>>2521345
>were you never taught in highschool that force times displacement equals energy?
i wuz

>compressing a gas requires a lot more work than compressing a liquid. and compressing a liquid to very high pressures at a high flow rate is almost trivial while doing the same with a gas, not so much.
Doesn't really matter how much work it requires to compress the gas, because almost all that energy is recovered in the end. Yes, heating boiling water is more efficient than heating air, but if you look at the actual efficiencies, steam doesn't do too well. Probably because heating a liquid to boiling doesn't do any work. And superheating steam is just as bad as heating a gas.

>if you like turbines so much then why aren't you shilling for steam impulse turbines?
I prefer reaction turbines, they handle saturated steam better, which is more efficient than superheated steam.

>and then there's the issue of feeding the combustion gasses directly into the turbine
I am not fixated on turbines per se, but rather any engine that operates off of the Brayton cycle, of which gas turbines are the most well known. I would probably choose a Quasiturbine rotary over a turbine for as compressing the intake air would help cool the rotor, which is perfectly fine for efficiency and an engine that doubles as a furnace.

>lol. lmao even. yeah if you're happy with an almost non-existant efficiency maybe
15% is comparable to the upper limit of atmospheric steam engine while being simpler, lighter, more compact, quicker to start, and doesn't need a source of water. Steam is going to need a turbine, rotary, or piston as well. I guarantee for any one that you select for a steam engine, it will run better on the Brayton cycle, because:
1. It will capture the work done by the exhaust gas.
2. It will burn more completely (especially if the boiler is quenching combustion).

[Anonymous No.2521392]

>>2520690
Have you seen how big and complicated locomotives are, and now anon has to add a generator?

If anon lived next to a vein of anthracite, which is highly unlikely since all of it that's easy to get to has been mined, this would still be dumb as hell.
>>2520244
There are zero realistic examples of what you're looking for.

You're wanting to have coal delivered to your house, burn it which is nasty as hell, connect the boiler to a steam powered generator, which will fuck up if the temp and pressure aren't right, then you'll need a battery system.

If you want to go off grid, wind or solar would be an order of magnitude cheaper and less complicated.

[Anonymous No.2521411]

>>2521392
>wind or solar would be an order of magnitude cheaper and less complicated
The technology is only simple, because someone else has done all the hard work for you. After the collapse, there will be no such services. How many caveman-hours do you think it would take to make all the electronics, batteries, and solar panels necessary to power your lame devices? There's a reason the industrial revolution was primarily a mechanical revolution and secondarily electrical for lighting, communication, ignition, and welding.

[Anonymous No.2521413]

>>2521373
>Doesn't really matter how much work it requires to compress the gas, because almost all that energy is recovered in the end.
seems like you didn't get the point.
>I prefer reaction turbines, they handle saturated steam better, which is more efficient than superheated steam.
condensating steam can indeed be an issue. that's why i find it a bit bizarre you're suggesting solid fuels to directly feed into a turbine. so far i haven't found any commercial applications of this.
>I am not fixated on turbines per se, but rather any engine that operates off of the Brayton cycle
all heat engines are just variations of the carnot engine, where you compress, heat, expand, cool, and repeat. Brayton cycle is nothing special.
>Quasiturbine rotary
looks like a discount wankel engine
>15% is comparable to the upper limit of atmospheric steam engine
again, athmospheric? think i made it pretty clear by now running a steam engine under high pressure and temperature isn't difficult unlike compressing a gas.
and you ignored the issue of the complexity of the first turbine stages as well where with steam it's just a nozzle that blows against a bucket and doesn't require anything fancy
>I guarantee for any one that you select for a steam engine, it will run better on the Brayton cycle, because:
>1. It will capture the work done by the exhaust gas.
not sure what you mean by this.
>2. It will burn more completely (especially if the boiler is quenching combustion).
that's not an issue at all. you run the combustion fumes through a heat exchanger and has no impact on the combustion temperatures itself.

every power plant that burns solid fuels uses a rankine cycle, why is that?

[Anonymous No.2521442]

>>2521373
> I would probably choose a Quasiturbine rotary over a turbine

quebecois hands wrote this post

[Anonymous No.2521445]

>>2521413
>that's why i find it a bit bizarre you're suggesting solid fuels to directly feed into a turbine
I'm actually proposing using a cyclone separator between the combustor and turbine.

>so far i haven't found any commercial applications of this
Since almost any existing gas turbine could be retrofitted with a feed tube and cyclone separator without a major drop in efficiency, the only reason why a solid fuel turbine hasn't gone commercial is a lack of imagination/foresight and herd mentality. You might as well ask why haven't we found an application for gas turbines. The answer is that gas turbines aren't as efficient as piston engines or large steam turbines.
>every power plant that burns solid fuels uses a rankine cycle, why is that?
Because these are plants with large engines and millions of dollars of funding behind them. The problem with steam is it doesn't scale down well. Small steam engines running at high pressures isn't feasible. Even if you can contain a boiler explosion in the exhaust stream, you still have to get inside to rebuild the boiler. It is much more feasible to raise the compression ratio of an IC engine.
>Brayton cycle is nothing special.
It's not other than being the only cycle that allows for a static combustion chamber in an IC engine, which is beneficial for utilizing solid fuels. There's also nothing preventing us now from raising the pressure ratio on a solid fuel engine.

The Brayton cycle also has a potential to be applied to furnaces to increase their thermal efficiency and performance. So anyone interested in developing any kind engine should take interest in the Brayton cycle.

>looks like a discount wankel engine
It's better than the Wankel. Wankel is limited to 3:1 compression ratio, whereas there is no limit to the compression ratio of the Quasiturbine.
http://quasiturbine.promci.qc.ca/ETheoryQTVersusWankel.htm

[Anonymous No.2521449]

>>2521413
>>1. It will capture the work done by the exhaust gas.
>not sure what you mean by this.
Simple, the combustion process causes an expansion of matter burned which is energy not captured by the engine.

>>2. It will burn more completely (especially if the boiler is quenching combustion).
>that's not an issue at all.
You're forgetting that a higher O2 pressure and temperature will increase completeness of combustion.

>>2521442
Non, je suis Americain. Mais j'ai etudié francais à le lycée.

[Anonymous No.2521509]

Just want to say you're all retards talking about turbines and steam engines and other dumb shit.

OP. What you want is a gasifier running a cheap gas/propane generator. Look up wood gas generator, there's a few videos about.

[Anonymous No.2521639]

>>2520244
You can go internal combustion, or external combustion.

>External combustion
The fuel is burned outside the generator. In practice, this would be in some kind of boiler to create steam. You're best off using low pressure steam powering a reciprocating engine. This would limit the explosive tendencies of high pressure boilers, and reciprocating steam engines are far more forgiving (and far less expensive) than turbines. With a lot of effort, you can even convert an old gasoline engine to run off of steam.

>Internal Combustion
The fuel is burned inside the engine, like in your car. The best bet would be to use a IDI diesel running on a slurry of like 85% coal dust and 15% diesel. You have to have a way to pulverize the coal down into a very fine dust. This would potentially offer the best efficiency short of a high pressure boiler/turbine.
Coal gasification would probably be the easiest internal combustion route. You bake the coal without any oxygen, and it releases combustible gases which are not unlike natural gas. This used to be very common, and was called "town gas". It does make carbon monoxide, so your setup should probably be in a very well ventilated shed outside and away from your house. You also get coke as a by product, which will burn extremely hot and efficiently - that's what steel mills run on.

>Heat only
In winter, the vast majority of your energy requirements will be for heat - your house, hot water, and cooking. A decent sized array of solar panels will produce enough electricity to power everything else, even in winter. The upside of this is that you don't have to worry about burning it when it's not cold outside, and during the summer you'll have more electricity than you know what to do with.

[Anonymous No.2521643]

>>2521299
There is no solid fuel brayton cycle turbines in practical use due to erosion. It has been tried many times by people and companies far more competent than the population of this board and always failed. Neither are solid fuel diesel engines a thing some rando from /diy/ could possibly do. The only example that worked in practice was the RUPA motor, a technology which was overcomplicated and disappeared in the 40's after about 4 decades of VERY limited use.

In short, your posts make perfect sense from thermodynamical point of view, but from an engineering point of view its not a viable proposition. Especially in the context of this retarded board.

[Anonymous No.2521778]

>>2521643
this
it’s hard enough to diy a useful power turbine stage that can take the heat for more than a few hours, and now you want OP to deal with erosion from coal dust on top of that

[Anonymous No.2521894]

>>2521639
>It does make carbon monoxide
There goes up to a quarter of the energy wasted. I'm seeing it's even worse for woodgas.

>>2521643
>There is no solid fuel brayton cycle turbines in practical use due to erosion
Don't see why a separator or reaction turbine wouldn't fix the issue.

>RUPA motor
Sounds interesting. However, only some Pajeet or Serbian shit appears when I search.


>a technology which was overcomplicated and disappeared in the 40's after about 4 decades of VERY limited use.
Yeah well, life got too easy. It's about to get a lot harder.

[Anonymous No.2521899]

Coal-Powered Turbine Engine Oldsmobile
https://youtu.be/0CAN5nO1ag0

>>2521643
>>2521894
>>RUPA motor
>Sounds interesting. However, only some Pajeet or Serbian shit appears when I search.
Nevermind, found it.

[Anonymous No.2521908]

Coal Powered Wankel
https://patents.google.com/patent/DE102010052076A1/en
>[a contact seal] is only necessary [at] low speed >At high operating speeds, a non-contact gap seal is cheaper. The loss of power due to leak gas in the gap seal is less than the friction loss of the sliding seal.

[Anonymous No.2521921]

>>2521899
The oldsmobile is an example of a failed project. There is a reason this never went into production.

>>2521908
You can patent anything you want, they don't check if it works or whether it could work. I can vouch for that as a holder of two patents.

If you want to do something realistically, go for steam. It is in the perfect spot of being doable by someone with machining and metalworking experience and being powerful enough to produce some useful power. Yeah, a moderate pressure hobby steam plant will be pretty much capped at 15% thermal efficiency and that is if you use superheated steam a condensing., but people do it as a hobby and it works. Of course I am talking of people like this guy - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85OmZU3dZpA and not the retards that put pressure cookers over open fire and rig crappy engines out of pneumatic cylinders and duct tape. And this guys engine is still on the lower end of the spectrum as it has no superheat and uses slidevalves and is noncondensing.

[Anonymous No.2521938]

>>2521335
>It's still complicated compared to a turbine. Probably just as efficient though maybe less because already half the energy is lost converting coal to CO.
Probably but unless you have a lot of experience in that field, making an actually working turbine system is gonna be hard. For wood gas you can just buy some old car for few hundred bucks and have all kind of useful parts beside motor to use for project and even sell to get money back
>There's also the risk of CO poisoning
Yes if you run a car powered with wood gas. Or place the generator in your house. Place it into a shed and buy CO detectors at least into shed and your house

[Anonymous No.2521948]

>>2521921
That's cute. How many HP?

>oldsmobile
>There is a reason this never went into production.
Glowniggers ITT flipped that it couldn't be used to engineer a crisis. I'd buy one just to run them over.

>If you want to do something realistically, go for steam.
An equivalent steam car would be larger, heavier, and either less efficient, water thirsty, or even larger to fit a condenser. The Doble steam car is the best design I've come across and it was basically a land boat with 100 HP.

>>2521938
>making an actually working turbine system is gonna be hard
Not really, a turbine is engine is as simple as it gets. If you think turbines are complicated, then you're dumber than a medieval Dutch millright.

[Anonymous No.2521956]

>>2521948
>a turbine is engine is as simple as it gets
Yes of course but you need to machine that turbine yourself. If you have gear and skill to make precise machining like that, then why no. Wood gasifier doesn't require that and you can connect it aggregate, car engine whatever you wanna power with it.

https://youtu.be/a6e3CprVTi8

[Anonymous No.2521960]

>>2521956
>need to machine that turbine yourself.
Yeah, weld some plates to a shaft and grind off the excess, so complicated.

>Wood gasifier doesn't require that
No, it just requires you to maintain a complex piston engine.

[Anonymous No.2521976]

>>2521300
Imagine rear ending this car and it blows up like a pinto

[Anonymous No.2521978]

>>2521960
>>2521948
I think you are the retarded millwright here. For a turbine to be efficient it needs multiple stages, which entails blades of geometries like pic related, multiple ones, perfectly balanced on the rotor and in close tolerances with the stator. Look on the model engineer forums for the thread on model turbines, and see how much of a problem these guys, a lot of them very skilled craftsmen have with making single stage turbines, with shit efficiency which are only supposed to be fancy toys and how much work those those take compared to piston engines in a diy setting (or even small industrial machine shop setting if you look at their setups), and extrapolate that to a turbine with lets say a few kW of power and tolerable isentropic efficiency. Theoretically, you can make an efficient single stage turbine, but basic thermodynamics then dictates that the rotational speed would be in the ranges of tens of thousands of rpm, so good fucking luck.

[Anonymous No.2521980]

>>2521948
>An equivalent steam car would be larger, heavier, and either less efficient, water thirsty, or even larger to fit a condenser. The Doble steam car is the best design I've come across and it was basically a land boat with 100 HP.

I forgot to answer this in the previous post. So yeah, likely, but this is a thread on small scale electricity generation not cars.

[Anonymous No.2521984]

>>2521978
Like I said, I wouldn't use a turbine. The Quasiturbine is still simpler and easier to make than a piston engine.

>>2521980
So buy a turbocharger for $100 and be done with it. The combustion chamber is about the same amount of welding as a gasifier.

>>2521980

[Anonymous No.2521985]

>>2521978
that's why i'm shilling for impulse steam turbines
don't need no fancy blade geometry or gay seals and tolerances in your piston, just blast some nignog scoops with a steam nozzle. basically just a glorified pelton wheel

[Anonymous No.2521989]

>>2521985
No reason that couldn't be done on a gas turbine as well.

[Anonymous No.2522006]

>>2521984
>Quasiturbine
I don't see how thats simpler to make than a piston engine. It it was, amateurs would build them and they don't. Unlike piston steam engines. Also, rotary positive displacement engines are retarded. Half the flow is leaked. This is why no body uses them outside of airtools.

>So buy a turbocharger for $100 and be done with it. The combustion chamber is about the same amount of welding as a gasifier.
Show me how to hook up that 20000 rpm turbocharger to a generator. Also show me one working continuously on solid fuel for extended ammounts of time.

[Anonymous No.2522009]

>>2522006
>hook up that 20000 rpm turbocharger to a generator
use a brushless motor nigger, this is not hard.

[Anonymous No.2522014]

>>2521989
gonna nig rig your impulse type compressor too?

[Anonymous No.2522016]

>>2521984
>The Quasiturbine is still simpler and easier to make than a piston engine.
Simpler and easier? You don't need to build a piston engine, you have a ready made one in your aggregate
>>2522009
Expensive af

[Anonymous No.2522019]

>>2522016
If you can’t afford a brushless motor, you can’t afford the machine shop to make turbines or quasiturbines or whatever the fuck you think is better than a proven reciprocating steam engine.
You also can’t afford to generate your own electricity and should leave it to an organization with economy of scale

[Anonymous No.2522022]

>>2522016
>Expensive af
Do you know what a functioning turbocharger costs?

[Anonymous No.2522031]

>>2522019
I think price is pretty important factor. This lawnmower with a regular brigs&stratton engine runs on wood gas. No brushless motor, no turbocharger, no machine shop or whatever else super expensive is needed, pretty much only some pipe and empty paint cans

[Anonymous No.2522047]

>>2522031
retardation in one picture

[Anonymous No.2522056]

>>2522047
I don't think so considering it runs one hour with one load. https://forum.driveonwood.com/t/toyota-corolla-charcoal-vehicle-gasifier-project/3777

See this video: https://youtube.com/watch?v=yL79ci4TH7k

[Anonymous No.2522121]

>>2522006
>I don't see how thats simpler to make than a piston engine.
Take 6 identical steel plates. Attach four of them together with hinges along their width. Fix two of the plates parallel one length apart. Cut sheet metal of identical width and weld them along the width of the parallel plates to make the stator. Make sure the length of the sheet metal is short enough to seal the 4-plate rotor, but also long enough to fit the rotor.

>>2522014
Only for the irony

>>2522016
>You don't need to build a piston engine, you have a ready made one in your aggregate
>>2522031
>This lawnmower with a regular brigs&stratton engine runs on wood gas.
It's all going to break down eventually, so why don't you keep it simple.

>Expensive af
Cheaper than going out and buying a generator.

[Anonymous No.2522278]

>>2522121
Congratulations, you just described how to make a turbine with zero isentropic efficiency and that is if you get it balanced. I am sure your special education teacher will give you a star for trying though.

[Anonymous No.2522279]

>>2520244
>>2520680
>unless you find a way to make liquid or gas fuel from coal to run an ICE
See:
>>2504527
It says "wood gas" but the principle is the same.

[Anonymous No.2522331]

>>2522279
Yeah this seems to be a pretty good option see >>2522056
That way you completely avoid having to build an engine.
Such a niggerrig is probably less efficient than a steam engine though.

[Anonymous No.2522342]

>>2522331
>Such a niggerrig is probably less efficient than a steam engine though.
Yeah of course but cheap to build and expand. I would try to improve overall efficiency instead of the engine. Like use solar cells as main power source, find a cheap fuel (willow?), use the excessive heat to warm water, improve filtering so the engine lasts longer and so on

[Anonymous No.2522352]

>>2522121
>Cheaper than going out and buying a generator.
Aggregates are not expensive, cheapest new one with 3kW power output is 300€ here. For a bare dc motor you also need to source and buy a suitable converter for output.

[Anonymous No.2522376]

>>2522278
>you just described how to make a turbine
It's a rotary, not a turbine.

>zero isentropic efficiency
Yes, but it's great for regeneration. It's either that or
>"your engine will overheat"
Everyone is a critic.

>get it balanced
This engine wouldn't be great for high speeds as is. You could install a shaft to remove any side-to-side resonance. It is still pretty good for an engine that wouldn't require machine tools. I dare you to build a better engine without them.

>>2522352
>Aggregates are not expensive
Not sure what you mean, but good luck getting them in the future.

>cheapest new one with 3kW power output is 300€ here
Does it burn coal from the factory?

>For a bare dc motor you also need to source and buy a suitable converter for output.
I'd just run an alternator at whatever frequency the engine outputs. I'm not going to use this to turn an electric motor at 50/60 Hz, that would be stupid.

[Anonymous No.2522427]

>>2522376
>Does it burn coal from the factory?
Basically you attach an pipe to the carburetor air intake and connect it into sealed container filled with coal. You add a filter in middle of this pipe to prevent coal ending up in engine and exhaust you use to cooling.

Now to start the motor, heat up the container so the coal starts burning, add a few drops of gasoline in the carburetor to start it easier, start it and then adjust carburetor so it runs smoothly on the wood gas.

>I'd just run an alternator at whatever frequency the engine outputs
Car alternator? I'm not familiar with those but that sounds pretty good idea if you have solar cell system and batteries to charge.
>I'm not going to use this to turn an electric motor at 50/60 Hz, that would be stupid.
I don't think frequency is a problem. I quickly checked that lawn mower motors run around 3600 rpm depending of load. 2-pole induction motor runs 3000 rpm at 50 Hz and 3600 rpm 60 Hz. Both is fine for the most of appliances. However, I don't know how much voltage an induction motor gives out and you can't control it with excitation current like on a synchronous generator.

[Anonymous No.2522431]

>>2520801
coal miners just remind me of the movie october sky

[Anonymous No.2522433]

>>2521976
just add a bumper cage around it
with spikes

[Anonymous No.2522460]

>>2522427
>Basically you attach an pipe to the carburetor air intake and connect it into sealed container filled with coal. You add a filter in middle of this pipe to prevent coal ending up in engine and exhaust you use to cooling.
How is that better than attaching a pipe from the turbocharger/Quasiturbine to a sealed container? As I already said (many such cases), the latter is basically the cost of scrap which you melt into an ingot inside your Brayton engine. Then forge into plates, sheets, hinges, grind them to spec (which you'd do to build any machine tools), and construct your engine (>>2522121).

>>2522431
Coal rockets would be GOAT.

>>2522433
Muh aerodynamics

[Anonymous No.2522483]

>>2522460
As it's said multiple times on the topic, making even a simple turbine at home requires highly precise techiques, balancing etc. Slapping some metal sheets together won't make a turbine but rather a fan with very small efficiency

[Anonymous No.2522521]

>>2522483
Yes, we both repeat each other because you can't be bother to read properly. It's a rotary compressor-expander, not a turbine.

[Anonymous No.2522527]

>>2522427
slap a cycloconverter on to it and you can change voltage and frequency directly from the output

[Anonymous No.2522543]

>>2522527
Yes of course, with power electronics you can generate pretty much every kind of waveform with low losses. But it might be hard to source suitable converter and then you also need to pay for it. I would use an aggregate or at least take a look how it's done there

[Anonymous No.2522576]

>>2522543
rectifying circuit then with a chopper to feed a battery to buffer load variation then? even i could probably nig rig this with shit from the ghetto

[Anonymous No.2522584]

>>2522543
>hard to source electronics
>easy to source piston engines or machine tools

>aggregate
Wdym. Scrapped equipment?

>>2522576
You'd need vacuum tubes for rectification.

[Anonymous No.2522590]

>>2522584
>You'd need vacuum tubes for rectification.
are you still living in the 19th century?

[Anonymous No.2522591]

>>2522576
If you have previous knowledge in electricity then obviously go for it. If not, power electronics is probably not the best way to start the hobby. It's not complicated but requires previous knowledge of various topics

[Anonymous No.2522604]

>>2522584
>hard to source electronics
>easy to source piston engines or machine tools
Literally every hardware store sells piston engine aggregates. You can find used ones on classifieds.
>aggregate
>Wdym. Scrapped equipment?
Picrel portable power genrator
>You'd need vacuum tubes for rectification.
Nigga what?

[Anonymous No.2522605]

Heres the pic

[Anonymous No.2522608]

>>2522590
>no niggers
>most people still had farms
>nuclear family
>shit lasts forever
Yes, the 19th century lifestyle was sustainable.

>>2522604
>every hardware store sells piston engine aggregates
So why even bother when the power comes out of the outlet, fuel comes out of the pump, and food comes from the grocery store?

>Nigga what?
Futuristic alien tech

[Anonymous No.2522613]

>>2522608
Go back to b

[Anonymous No.2522708]

Hello OP

You can use coal to create a long term pressure generator with tools laying around your house.

Dont forget the 60 psi pressure release

https://youtu.be/3csHOl6xBXM

[Anonymous No.2522727]

>>2522708
That steam engine makes a great gasifier.

[Anonymous No.2522756]

>>2522708
>With a washing machine motor we built this high performance brushless generator that is capable of generating 500 watts of peak power and 220 volts of AC. It can light up the kitchen and the house
doubt.jpg, the entire thing is one open loop
other than that, pretty solid (as in, it actually works)

[Anonymous No.2522775]

>>2522756
Really, you don't think it can make a 1/2 HP?

[Anonymous No.2522804]

>>2522708
There doesn't appear to be any kind of regulator on the output of the burner so I don't see how it can adjust to a changing load. I can't tell what exactly the 5A device he plugged the motor into is. It might be a voltage regulator but he's certainly not controlling the frequency of this thing. Frequency is not an issue when you're powering a switching power supply and a light bulb but it will mess with your stuff if you try powering anything more complicated than that. Actual power companies have to very carefully balance supply with load to make sure their generators are operating at the correct frequency. Portable generators have to as well but they aren't so accurate.

Also what's with these stupid diy videos and tack welding? Does no one in street shitter land know how to put down a bead?

[Anonymous No.2522816]

>>2522775
i'm not really that interested in the power output and 500W is still very modest, but like >>2522804 i'm raising questions about the output voltage and frequency
looks like he put magnets on an induction rotor to make a simple synchro generator which apparently seems to work (not trivial with single phase) but if you were to apply a load then obviously there will be a torque that needs to be overcome, slowing the turbine down, meaning lower output voltage and frequency. with this build you have little to no control.
but hey fundamentally it seems to work, kudos for that

>>2522804
>I can't tell what exactly the 5A device he plugged the motor into is
looks like an iphone charger. looked it up and apparently they're designed to work internationally, meaning a range of 110-220V, 50-60Hz, probably more.
so very forgiving when the voltage and frequency is all over the place, which strongly seems to be the case here.
but i really wouldn't hook this up to the net of my house even if it's disconnected from the grid. putting that shit in the video description is quite irresponsible desu.

[Anonymous No.2522874]

>>2522816
I'm talking about this thing. Upon rewatching it in higher quality I can see that it clearly says "transformer" on it. I couldn't read that before and thought maybe he is trying to be smart and put a 220v regulator on it, but that is not the case. So yeah, what he's got here is outputting a random frequency and voltage and is not regulated in any way. Anything you plug into this there is a good chance it will either break or not work at all.

[Anonymous No.2522931]

just use diesel like other people. put a big boiler on it, make boiler drive turbine which you can attach a generator to.

[Anonymous No.2523546]

>>2522931
>just use diesel
>put a big boiler on it
>boiler drive turbine
>attach a generator
clown nigga

[Anonymous No.2523549]

>>2523546
boiler+turbine is more efficient than ICE

[Anonymous No.2523798]

>>2523549
run a boiler+turbine on the exhaust gasses of an ICE
there, you've reinvented the combined cycle

[Anonymous No.2523829]

>>2520251
>No, turbines are really expensive.

Then make your own. Some mother fuckers are doing this shit with rivers in third world countries.

[Anonymous No.2523955]

>>2520244
Fucking poojeets make a steam powered generator. Just buy one from them add some coal and water then plug it in. Problem solved. How retarded is everyone here?

[Anonymous No.2524010]

>>2521301
>Looks complicated
This is 100+ year old tech, very much used during WWII.
Have a look at the wood gas generator thread running in /diy/ just now.

[Anonymous No.2524112]

any /diy/ ways to do this without it costing a fucking fortune? coal, gas, whatever

[Anonymous No.2524166]

>>2524112
Define "a fortune". If poor, fix your life preferably by job or jobs which also increase your relevant skills.

The most important system you will every put together is that of your tools and equipment from which all other blessings flow. Tools and equipment that reduce build costs for subsequent projects. Until you are properly equipped stick to projects you can do with what you have. Every mechanic and gearhead should be able to weld, braze and torch bend and the equipment is not very expensive used.

[Anonymous No.2524291]

>>2524166
how do you diy with a job esp elaborate conventional useless projects like these
diy doesn't need serious immersion like art?

[Anonymous No.2525022]

>>2524291
You can begin as I did with exhaustive reading which I've done since childhood. Study permits you to learn theory of operation, how successful systems are designed and how best to copy success.

Elaborate projects should wait until you've built the much more valuable basic skills and knowledge base required. You can speed things a bit by taking formal training the most valuable of which is auto mechanics because of the wide variety of systems and principles you will learn. Then take a welding course. It takes years to build the needful but everything you learn is useful. Over time you'll lose interest in useless projects while finding many useful things to do. (That's why I don't bother autistic metal melting or smithing which are not very useful in the modern world.)

[Anonymous No.2525258]

>>2522804
From watching some more street shitter vids I think I've figured out the tack welds. It's because these guys don't own a welding hood. They either can't afford one or don't think it's important. They can't put down a bead because they can't look at the weld, so they just repeatedly tack it.

[Anonymous No.2525263]

>>2520658
>>freeze until you have to change your oil or
>>remind your neighbors that their car is due for an oil change
what if I told you that waste oil is super fucking expensive to get rid of because of environmental regulations, and that waste oil furnaces will happily burn it for all the people who would be more than happy to give it to you for free? The local construction yard heats their huge garage with waste oil, which they get because they have a sign out front "We take used oil" and people just drop the shit off.

[Anonymous No.2525283]

>>2525258
judging by the comments i think it was made by a spic and not a pajeet

[Anonymous No.2525420]

>>2521308
where the engine or filter immediately clogs up with tar after you try to get the gassifier started for 30 minutes with a propane torch.

there was a reason they are not mainstream anon

[Anonymous No.2525440]

>>2521345
>non-existant efficiency maybe
You can also increase the pressure/efficiency with compound turbos.
https://youtu.be/MVHZWLFXKPo?t=925