Generator Counter Torque Compensation - was this overlooked ? by jimmyj

Congratulations, your proposal has been named a finalist in the Climate CoLab Waste management contest. You have until July 20th to edit your proposal. The Judges suggest that you focus your edits on the topics listed below. This is an intriguing idea that could have important implications for improving the efficiency of power generation, and the team is commended for its innovative idea. Specific suggestions for improvement: - First, the team should more explicitly describe the current proof of concept so the judges can better ascertain how the prototype works, if its results are repeatable and scalable, etc. In other words, what is the current state of the technology and what specific advancements would be targeted if this project were to be funded by an investor? - Second, it should be possible to put some rough numbers on the energy and emissions savings through readily available data. For example, EPA and DOE databases exist on U.S. power plants and their heat rates. The team should be able to estimate the percentage improvement attainable from reducing magnetic forces and apply this percentage improvement to the EPA/DOE data for an order of magnitude estimate. - Third, and similarly, please provide preliminary cost estimates, even if rough. In addition, the presentation was disjointed, jumping back and forth between different topics, such as cement, hydro power, desalination, geoengineering, gasification of waste. It would be better to focus on the technology and how it improves the efficiency of motors and what contribution this improvement would make in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It would also be helpful to include a discussion of other research and engineering efforts in this realm and why the current proposal is superior.

Jimmy, Each contest is judges separately, so in making your edits, you will want to make your proposal read as a stand-alone document that can be fully understood by the judges, who will be looking only at that proposal and not at your proposals in other contests. Best, RL For the Climate CoLab team

I have separated the individual segments of the comment and replied to them... you are >>. I am >>>. >> The proposal starts with the premise that generators and electric motors are inefficient, but the 1 GW generators of the 1970's had efficiencies of 99% (electrical output divided by mechanical input). There is not a lot of headroom there. And even smaller machines have efficiencies in the 90% range. >>> There Is no premise, indeed the invitation by an associate of ClimateColab to submit the proposal was made after stating that the principles did not seek to suggest that the electrical generator was inefficient. Size is the key. The larger the generator the higher the efficiency but the losses due to the necessity to provide higher pressure and heat are greater. The grant of the UK patent covering this was acquired by my contacting the patent assessor personally to state precisely the opposite to what is implied here. I insisted on a written statement to retract his implication and I got it. Anyone who has read the transcript presented to ClimateColab would not have stated what is suggested here. >> The statement "a large proportion of the input energy expended to generate electrical current is required merely to overcome the magnetic interaction between a generator’s rotor and stator" may be referring to the magnetizing ("reactive") power that does not directly manifest itself in real power. >>> Anyone with a basic training in electrical power production knows that reactive power is that power resulting from the supply of power to an electrical load that causes an angular shift in the relationship between the supplied voltage and current. This has nothing to do with the magnetic effect that occurs between the stator and the rotor at the time of power production. P = VI cos α where if cos α is at unity the actual power is VI. Where the angle increases the apparent power (the hypotenuse) increases due to the vertical (the reactive component) increasing. >> There may be some confusion over plant input energy vs. generator shaft input energy. The proposal reads: "Specifically, there are various means of increasing efficiency in conventional plant. In particular, CCGT plants have a thermal efficiency of around 60%. Operators of these plants are therefore effectively wasting, in efficiency terms, 40% of the input energy. Assuming a mid-point efficiency increment due to counter torque compensation of 60%, then 60% x 40% = 24% which when added to the current 60% efficiency is an up-rating to 84%." But the 40% represents a thermodynamic loss of the (cascaded) heat engines, and NOT generator efficiency. In other words, the quoted section above confuses fuel input to the plant with shaft power input to the generator. All but a small fraction of the 40% is waste heat from the turbines. >>> Confusion there might be, but not of mine. The 40% represents a heat loss but that is due to the turbines having to work overtime to overcome the braking effect. There is therefore no confusion (who am I telling this to ?) ; reducing the work reduces the heat loss which reduces the input energy required to accomplish the work. I agree, THIS IS NOTHING TO DO WITH GENERATOR EFFICIENCY ! >> The description of the experiment was somewhat difficult to follow, but it is interesting to note that there are no experimental results given, only sketches. >>> First, this is not an experiment. It is the proof, as in a proof of concept (Joe Romm would have used a “Duh!”), I don’t mean to be nasty, I’m just surprised I have to explain this. If it is difficult to follow, then maybe the assessor is not electrically orientated. I posted a proposal in the Electricity Production competition which had some added detail but about which I have heard absolutely nothing. Not even to say I’d failed. I wonder which version is being assessed. Not only is there a test summary there are also no “sketches”, whatever they might be. >> There appears to be some discussion of generation of DC (or pulses adding up to DC), but that can’t be done without a rectifier. We do, every once in a while, see attempts to go directly to DC, without any semiconductors, and it is always difficult. >>> This is very confusing ; the whole project revolves around the use of a full wave rectifier which, if the assessor had even glanced at what I call a composite diagram, is shown in full glory (maybe not in glorious “Technicolor”) as the required article to accomplish what I call Counter Torque Compensation. >> Also, if the proposed approach were technically feasible, a question left unaddressed is whether firms would purchase the unit or retrofit for the costs proposed or some slightly reduced cost. >>> It is at this stage that, having studied the calibre of the judges who are supposed to be judging the entries, that I start to become nervous. The first and second are presumably highly respected individuals who, I can only presume at this time, would similarly be nervous to be associated with the quality of the assessment that has occurred here. I still do not understand what this last statement actually means. Please clarify every statement so I can sleep easy. Thank-you and Regards Jim

As an analyst, what transpired with my Industrial Efficiency entry may warrant analysis. When the initial notification of finalist status was made everything looked good and the comments supported that. It was suggested that I include figures based on EPA / DOE tables relating to how much emissions could be reduced ; after that the entry was scratched. I actually entered 5 proposals, wrongly assuming that the judges would appraise them as a group. I was made aware subsequently that each proposal needed to stand alone. The 5 proposals taken as a group would, if considered as complementary, explain how it might be that, by increasing the end-to-end process of generating electrical power, all parties, including the oil and gas industries, might prosper at the same time as starting to clean up the environment. If it was the case that the sidelining of the Industrial Efficiency proposal was as a result of the suggestion that raw material consumption would be reduced, then a re-appraisal of all 5 proposals is necessary. I am suggesting that raw material consumption would increase (it can do no other) by producing a clean energy-storage medium, at the same time as benefitting the environment. Such a solution is, I believe, unique.

Ok, I’ve posted 2 more images over to Bluehost. The first is rather more than just the mock-up ; I’ve included the generator to be compensated on the right (I6) showing the rotor and the stator separated together with a replacement front-end on which will mounted a new front bearing. What I call an “inelegant” compensator (what I can do in my limited situation) is shown to the right in its partial state. Recap that the ply parts will be replaced with stainless steel. Also note that the compensator coils, of which there are 2, have a diameter which matches the width of the generator shoe, that being the 90° equivalent to the internal diameter of the stator. These are the P2 and P4 coils of the P.O.C. The flux per unit area has been calculated to match that of the generator. The compensator rotor will also be stainless and, in order to reduce initial costs, what would have been a coil will be replaced by permanent magnets. As testing progresses, this can change. The rotor is shown in the first 90% position, emulating the proof-of-concept. The second image illustrates the effect on the P.O.C of the applied compensation, the transition of the speed from 134 to 108 being the effect of the braking due to induction and the transition to 120 from 108 being the effect of what is only half the possible compensation applied.

This is obviously late in the day, but at the 17th September 2014 the generator / compensator combination is in test. I have maintained a log on twitter, under the name of "withthechange". All the build / problem areas are documented, as is a complete overview of the theory of the device. The reader may be aware of other circumstances on-going which would necessitate a vast improvement in generation efficiency, specifically in the area of environmental cleanup. I have received very little feedback here at home, but the reader might appreciate that a technology such as this could be considered as severely disruptive in terms of changing established ideas and interfering with manufacturing / planning etc. Up to now, the generator prototype has behaved precisely as the proof-of-concept. At the time of writing I am reducing the compensation gap and observing the effect on the time the generator runs. As stated previously, once I have this right I will run 2 generators side-by-side in order to demonstrate that the compensated version runs for longer. Things look good. Good day/night. JtT.