TerraLiner:12 m Globally Mobile Beach House/Class-A Crossover w 6x6 Hybrid Drivetrain
- Thread starter biotect
- Start date
NeverEnough
Adventurer
So here's whatcha do:
Get yourself some of those nifty Dr. Lazar hydrogen storage tanks.
And a nifty hydrogen "generator" (I don't like that nomenclature, I call it an electrolyzer, but everyone else calls it a generator) cart.
And then, get yourself one or two of those nifty new Bladon micro-jet engines (the same as used in that sexy Jaguar C-X75) to power an electric generator or two. Tell Bladon to set them up to run on hydrogen.
Okay, now you have everything except water, which you need in order to separate it into Rocket Fuel (hydrogen and oxygen).
Hell...that's no problem! Two words - Atmospheric Condenser. They make them in all sorts of sizes, and I do recall seeing some smaller ones for marine use.
So now, you have a closed system, that refills its own fuel tank directly from the air. The only problem of course, is that you'll never electrolyze the water fast enough to drive the truck, so you'll have to keep those turbines running 24/7 to recharge the batteries AND power the water maker.
Have fun running the numbers on that one. (I did.)
It'll work.
FIRST RTW UNREFUELED!
FIRST RTW IN AN ELECTRIC VEHICLE! (? maybe, I dunno)
DITTO HYBRID! (?)
DITTO HYDRO-ELECTRIC! (?)
DITTO WATER-POWERED! (?)
I wanna play! Those Bladon jets are sweet!
dwh
Tail-End Charlie
Well, you've got the money and you were looking for another project right? Build it! I double-dog dare ya!
Here's some basic numbers to start with. The generator on the Hackey Fuso uses a 300cc diesel engine. Consumes .2g/hour of fuel. 3500w continuous rating.
Lazar says somewhere that his tanks hold 15kg of hydrogen. 4 tanks would be 60kg. To get that, you'd have to process 90kg of water, at 2.2 lbs. per kilo that works out to 198 lbs. of water and at 8.4 lbs. per gallon that'd be 23.5g of water to fill 4 tanks.
Says the 'Vette goes 400 miles on a fill-up. That's around 17 something miles per gallon of water. At 60 mph, that's be 6.7 hours.
A 350 engine is around 18.4 times the size of a 300cc engine. So 6.7 x 18.4 is around 123 hours to run the smaller engine on the same amount of water.
Break that down and you get .2g of water per hour. Same as running that engine on diesel.
Small water maker draws less than 1kw/hour and makes 20g of water per day.
So building a hydrogen powered machine with a 300cc engine should produce 20g of water per day, and consume about 5g. 15g per day over and above self-consumption. Also, it will produce 3.5 kva but probably self-consume 1 kva, so now you've got a machine that produces 2.5 kva continuous available power, and 15g of fresh water per day - over and above self-consumption - and never runs out of fuel.
That's extremely ballpark math, but it's all based on real-world numbers.
When I originally designed that machine (years ago), I knew that a reciprocating engine wouldn't have the TBOH necessary to make it salable, so I substituted my own micro-jet design. No need for that now, since Bladon has already done it. Dunno what the TBOH on the Bladon is, but it's only got one moving part, and I think maybe that uses an air bearing.
I originally envisioned military and disaster relief uses for it, but it would work well on a hybrid electric vehicle. The problem is, you can't electrolyze the water fast enough, so you have to do load-shifting with a battery bank. Drive a little while, charge a long while.
And no, it doesn't violate thermodynamics. NOT perpetual motion. It just LOOKS like it.
Haf-E
Expedition Leader
I don't know - part of what they are saying is pure hype - see the following from their website:
"Part of the range of Bladon Jets micro power generators currently under development, this design concept for a 15kVA (12kW) unit illustrates the compelling benefits of this new breed of generator. Housed in a cabinet which is similar in size to a domestic fridge/freezer, the micro generator has a very small footprint. With whispering sound levels and a total absence of vibration when operating, it is suitable for installation in almost any urban or rural environment. The equivalent diesel generator would take up roughly four times the volume, weigh ten times as much, and produce a significant amount of both noise and vibration."
http://www.bladonjets.com/applicati...bladon-jets-micro-power-generator-case-study/
There are lots of 12kW diesel generators which are smaller than a typical domestic fridge/freezer - so I doubt they would take up four times the volume and would weigh ten times as much. The Onan 12kw generator is only 816 lb wet and only measures 41.5 in long, 24.5 in wide and 27 in high.
http://www.cumminsonan.com/www/pdf/specsheets/a-1474.pdf
Very interesting still... but I wonder how an air-bearing would handle rough road driving with the amount of gyroscopic forces involved.
"Part of the range of Bladon Jets micro power generators currently under development, this design concept for a 15kVA (12kW) unit illustrates the compelling benefits of this new breed of generator. Housed in a cabinet which is similar in size to a domestic fridge/freezer, the micro generator has a very small footprint. With whispering sound levels and a total absence of vibration when operating, it is suitable for installation in almost any urban or rural environment. The equivalent diesel generator would take up roughly four times the volume, weigh ten times as much, and produce a significant amount of both noise and vibration."
http://www.bladonjets.com/applicati...bladon-jets-micro-power-generator-case-study/
There are lots of 12kW diesel generators which are smaller than a typical domestic fridge/freezer - so I doubt they would take up four times the volume and would weigh ten times as much. The Onan 12kw generator is only 816 lb wet and only measures 41.5 in long, 24.5 in wide and 27 in high.
http://www.cumminsonan.com/www/pdf/specsheets/a-1474.pdf
Very interesting still... but I wonder how an air-bearing would handle rough road driving with the amount of gyroscopic forces involved.
dwh
Tail-End Charlie
Yea, I left it out of the rough numbers post because I can't recall if Lazar has ever published the specs on his hydrogen generator cart. His switch2hydrogen web site went through a few iterations over the years. Now I see he's allowed the domain registration to lapse and moved it to a subdirectory of his unitednuclear.com site and did a quickie revamp of that page. Looking over the latest version (that I linked to earlier) I see it says the Vette gets around 350 miles on a fillup - I distinctly remember an earlier version of the site said 400 miles.
I also remember seeing an early pic from the first version of the site, which showed that generator cart running from what looked like a 100w solar panel, and he does say on the current version of the site that you can plug it into the wall. So even in the worst possible scenario it has to be drawing something less than 15a@120v. If it really drew that much (not likely) it would reduce the surplus electrical output over consumption quite a bit - but there would still be excess. But I also raised the power consumption estimate of the water maker to roughly compensate (small one I saw for boats a long time ago only used IIRC 600w to produce 20g of water per day).
So like I said, extremely ballpark math.
I have no numbers on the Bladon, and their micro-jet is larger than the mini turboshaft I came up with so long ago to stuff into a robot's chest cavity. Feeding the Bladon would require a bigger electrolyzer than feeding the jet I came up with for my robot. So someone has to sit down and redo all the math based on using the Bladon and whatnot.
I don't KNOW that the Bladon uses an air bearing - I haven't studied their site or the specs on their engine. I did see something on the site about air bearings though. Even if it does, I doubt it would matter because A) it's gotta use fairly serious pressure, B) Jaguar already put a couple of those things in their C-X75, C) their engine only has that one small moving part and D) the Bladon brothers used to be auto racers, so I would imagine they've been thinking in terms of automotive use for that engine from day one.
EDIT: Ah. Looking at the link that Half-E posted to where they talk about generators, at the bottom is does say it uses "air bearings".
Last edited:
dwh
Tail-End Charlie
Well, looking over the Bladon site, there appear to be a few numbers...
From the page that Haf-E linked:
"Part of the range of Bladon Jets micro power generators currently under development, this design concept for a 15kVA (12kW) unit illustrates the compelling benefits of this new breed of generator."
http://www.bladonjets.com/applicati...bladon-jets-micro-power-generator-case-study/
From the page about the Jaguar:
"The C-X75 concept was developed by Jaguar as a range-extended electric two-seater supercar, and was designed to explore the outer limits of both performance and sustainability. Its powertrain was developed with support from Bladon Jets engineers, and features two 70kW micro gas turbines.
Conceived as a plug-in electric hybrid vehicle, the C-X75 features a 580kW (778bhp) propulsion system with powerful 145kW (195bhp) electric motors at each wheel. The Bladon Jets micro gas turbines are mounted in the centre of the car, and can either generate 140kW to charge the batteries – extending the range of the car to a remarkable 900km (560 miles) –or in Track mode can provide supplementary power directly to the electric motors."
http://www.bladonjets.com/applications/automotive/jaguar-c-x75-concept-case-study/
From this here other page:
"The Cambiano drive system incorporates an APU (Auxiliary Power Unit) to charge the batteries and, when necessary, to supply energy directly to the motors: this is a 50 kW Bladon Jets micro turbine which normally runs on diesel but which can be calibrated to be compatible with various types of fuel."
http://www.bladonjets.com/news/bladon-jets-at-the-geneva-motor-show/
The problem with running a vehicle from hydrogen that is processed on-board, is that it takes a long time to process the water into hydrogen, and also that the electrolyzer is gonna be pretty big.
So it could be done with a truck (6x6? Perfect.) which has room for everything, and it could be used for an RTW or other some such expedition vehicle/overland campervan, which can take the time to sit around most of each day processing water and charging a (huge) battery bank.
You aren't gonna do it with a car, because you have to load-shift the water processing off-board like Lazar (and every other hydrogen powered vehicle) does.
From the page that Haf-E linked:
"Part of the range of Bladon Jets micro power generators currently under development, this design concept for a 15kVA (12kW) unit illustrates the compelling benefits of this new breed of generator."
http://www.bladonjets.com/applicati...bladon-jets-micro-power-generator-case-study/
From the page about the Jaguar:
"The C-X75 concept was developed by Jaguar as a range-extended electric two-seater supercar, and was designed to explore the outer limits of both performance and sustainability. Its powertrain was developed with support from Bladon Jets engineers, and features two 70kW micro gas turbines.
Conceived as a plug-in electric hybrid vehicle, the C-X75 features a 580kW (778bhp) propulsion system with powerful 145kW (195bhp) electric motors at each wheel. The Bladon Jets micro gas turbines are mounted in the centre of the car, and can either generate 140kW to charge the batteries – extending the range of the car to a remarkable 900km (560 miles) –or in Track mode can provide supplementary power directly to the electric motors."
http://www.bladonjets.com/applications/automotive/jaguar-c-x75-concept-case-study/
From this here other page:
"The Cambiano drive system incorporates an APU (Auxiliary Power Unit) to charge the batteries and, when necessary, to supply energy directly to the motors: this is a 50 kW Bladon Jets micro turbine which normally runs on diesel but which can be calibrated to be compatible with various types of fuel."
http://www.bladonjets.com/news/bladon-jets-at-the-geneva-motor-show/
The problem with running a vehicle from hydrogen that is processed on-board, is that it takes a long time to process the water into hydrogen, and also that the electrolyzer is gonna be pretty big.
So it could be done with a truck (6x6? Perfect.) which has room for everything, and it could be used for an RTW or other some such expedition vehicle/overland campervan, which can take the time to sit around most of each day processing water and charging a (huge) battery bank.
You aren't gonna do it with a car, because you have to load-shift the water processing off-board like Lazar (and every other hydrogen powered vehicle) does.
NeverEnough
Adventurer
Correspondence with Bladon indicates they are still in the design phase, hoping to have something tangible by Q2 of 2015, with the focus on diesel, other fuels to follow. And the "refrigerator" dimensions refer to their complete generator assembly, not the microturbine. Capstone's smallest unit has similar dimensions, and they've actually got a few dozen buses and a handful of Class 8's running with their turbines. Very interesting tech for an HEV, and certainly something to explore for a true EV.
As for Lazar, his vette, and his particle accelerator to metal hydride..... that's a guy that definitely marches to different drum! Reminds me of Doc Brown from Back to the Future.
And I wouldn't be all that hung up on making water, since an expo rig has to carry a butt-load anyway. In fact, I've done some research on that front to see how feasible it would be to use a water-maker in order to shave 800-1000 lbs. off the weight of an expo rig. The reality is we use a lot of water and it's pretty easy to obtain and store, albeit heavy. So using it as fuel is an extremely attractive idea.
My limited research on EV possibilities for an expo rig point to range limitation as the big issue, which is exacerbated by all the added weight associated with mobile living quarters. As dwh said, "drive a little, charge a lot". So a hybrid (HEV) seems to be more achievable near term, using an efficient combustion engine as a range extender. That's where the turbines are trying to break in, being much more efficient, clean, and easier to maintain than an internal combustion engine.
And dwh, I just might take the double-dog dare, but you've gotta help me out by coming up with a way to burn up the rig's macerated black water as part of the system:
http://www.thezld.com/
As for Lazar, his vette, and his particle accelerator to metal hydride..... that's a guy that definitely marches to different drum! Reminds me of Doc Brown from Back to the Future.
And I wouldn't be all that hung up on making water, since an expo rig has to carry a butt-load anyway. In fact, I've done some research on that front to see how feasible it would be to use a water-maker in order to shave 800-1000 lbs. off the weight of an expo rig. The reality is we use a lot of water and it's pretty easy to obtain and store, albeit heavy. So using it as fuel is an extremely attractive idea.
My limited research on EV possibilities for an expo rig point to range limitation as the big issue, which is exacerbated by all the added weight associated with mobile living quarters. As dwh said, "drive a little, charge a lot". So a hybrid (HEV) seems to be more achievable near term, using an efficient combustion engine as a range extender. That's where the turbines are trying to break in, being much more efficient, clean, and easier to maintain than an internal combustion engine.
And dwh, I just might take the double-dog dare, but you've gotta help me out by coming up with a way to burn up the rig's macerated black water as part of the system:
http://www.thezld.com/
dwh
Tail-End Charlie
I should also note that I'm pretty sure Lazar got screwed by Big Business/The Oil Industry/G.H.W. Bush and Friends...
The inside of the tank uses a metallic hydride, which is only being mined in China. IIRC, Lazar got a patent on that tank. To maximize the efficiency (surface area) of the hydride, he had to bombard the hydride with a particle accelerator. Difficult to book time on those, and impossible to book enough time for production runs, so he built his own particle accelerator in the backyard (up to code, of course).
A couple years ago, there was a note on Lazar's switch2hydrogen site that his target price point for the kit was $10k, but that the Chinese had just jacked up the price of the hydride outrageously, so now he'd have to sell his kit for $50k to turn a profit. He mentioned that he was exploring other avenues.
I figure the powers that be (Global Mandarins), waited until he was on the verge of actually starting to sell the kits, and then jacked up the price to screw him. (They do have a grudge against Lazar.) Now all they gotta do is wait for his patent to expire (won't be long now) and you'll start seeing those Lazar style storage tanks all over the place with "Made in China" (or, India) printed on them. They want to sell hydrogen to the people using the same business model they use now to sell gasoline.
But they would have screwed him anyway - if they couldn't do it the way they did, they would of done it with legislation. Sell it to the people under the heading of, "Don't try this at home". They'll probably do the legislation anyway. They'll need some juicy bits for the propaganda machine, so expect some poor hydrogen "moonshiner" to blow himself up one of these days. When it happens, it'll be all over the news, and 5 minutes later it will be illegal to make your own hydrogen without a (very expensive) license.
The inside of the tank uses a metallic hydride, which is only being mined in China. IIRC, Lazar got a patent on that tank. To maximize the efficiency (surface area) of the hydride, he had to bombard the hydride with a particle accelerator. Difficult to book time on those, and impossible to book enough time for production runs, so he built his own particle accelerator in the backyard (up to code, of course).
A couple years ago, there was a note on Lazar's switch2hydrogen site that his target price point for the kit was $10k, but that the Chinese had just jacked up the price of the hydride outrageously, so now he'd have to sell his kit for $50k to turn a profit. He mentioned that he was exploring other avenues.
I figure the powers that be (Global Mandarins), waited until he was on the verge of actually starting to sell the kits, and then jacked up the price to screw him. (They do have a grudge against Lazar.) Now all they gotta do is wait for his patent to expire (won't be long now) and you'll start seeing those Lazar style storage tanks all over the place with "Made in China" (or, India) printed on them. They want to sell hydrogen to the people using the same business model they use now to sell gasoline.
But they would have screwed him anyway - if they couldn't do it the way they did, they would of done it with legislation. Sell it to the people under the heading of, "Don't try this at home". They'll probably do the legislation anyway. They'll need some juicy bits for the propaganda machine, so expect some poor hydrogen "moonshiner" to blow himself up one of these days. When it happens, it'll be all over the news, and 5 minutes later it will be illegal to make your own hydrogen without a (very expensive) license.
dwh
Tail-End Charlie
Don't forget his 200 mph jet car, his coming out about working on a captured flying saucer for the .gov (and getting shot at over it, which caused him to break silence in self-defense), and his membership in the "fireworks club" (guys who build bombs and blow them up in the desert for fun).
Sure, but a small water maker that can make 20g a day is basically a 5k BTU window unit a/c with a redesigned airflow, and they don't use all that much power, so what the hell - might as well install two of them.
Absolutely, for a truly "usable" vehicle, range extender is the way to go. For a concept RTW vehicle for a thesis, you can make all sorts of whack assumptions work.
Easy-peasy. Just convert an Eco-John to have an electric heating element instead of the propane or diesel burner.
That ZLD is cool. About time someone updated the ol' Thermosan system. Of course, with the ZLD you could burn the gray water as well, but I would think you might want to filter and recycle that for more fuel.
biotect
Designer
Hi dwh,
I'm not so certain that an incinerating toilet like the EcoJohn is the answer, because of the "smell factor".
***********************************
1. Incinerating Poop
I've already posted extensively on incinerating toilets earlier in the thread, on page 19, post #185, at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...pedition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page19 (standard ExPo pagination). One of the videos posted made this basic problem abundantly clear: incinerating toilets smell something fierce.
Here are the videos are again, for your entertainment. Debating toilet technologies is always just one step away from inducing the deep-belly guffaws of potty humor....
[video=youtube;lzkhwVOP8O4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzkhwVOP8O4 [/video]
See the third video in particular, on the question of smell. Yes, the narrator seems to be suffering from Incinolet-induced dementia.
Again, for a list of incinerating toilet manufacturers, see post #185.
For an excellent, very compact summary of the positives and negatives of incinerating toilets, see http://cottagelife.com/71703/diy/the-lowdown-on-incinerating-toilets . For an equally compact assessment of composting toilets, see http://cottagelife.com/71699/diy/tips-diy/the-lowdown-on-composting-toilets .
***********************************
2. Our deep-seated need to Flush-and-Forget
The central design issue that alternative toilets have to confront, is that we've been habituated to a "flush and forget" bathroom experience. No lingering long-term smells, and the poop just seems to vanish. As such, composting toilets face a major psychological hurdle, because most people can't get their minds around the fact that they are basically sitting on top of a box of poop. The design of composting toilets has then tended to focus on minimizing "yucky poop awareness":
See http://www.treehugger.com/bathroom-design/more-hot-poop-composting-toilets.html , for a very thorough survey of various models of composting toilets, none of them all that satisfactory.
This need to "flush and forget" might be modern, and merely a symptom of our over-dependence on technology.
I am inclined to think, however, that it is more deep-seated. As hunter gatherers we did not poop regularly in same place. To the contrary, we pooped far and wide, and the "environment" then took care of our decomposing our waste products. As hunter-gatherers our population density was thin enough for this to be possible. Further, I suspect that because other people's poop contains so many potentially threatening bacteria and parasites, we probably have a built-in, instinctual need to poop where no man (or woman) has pooped before. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why other people's poop tends to smell so bad, and our own not so much?
So contrary to advocates of compositing toilets, personally I don't think that there is anything psychologically "natural" about sitting on top of a box of other people's poop. "Flush and forget" may be modern, but the psychological need that it satisfies probably is not.
***********************************
3. Flush-and-Forget + Incineration
Seen in this light, what NeverEnough just proposed would constitute a truly elegant solution.
One could still pee and poop in a Sealand vacu-flush toilet that minimizes water consumption, but preserves the "flush and forget" experience. Thereby satisfying our "flush and forget" sensibilities, and so too, our Eco sensibilities regarding water usage. The poop would then find its way to a macerator, and from there it would be pulverized by the high-temperature exhaust of a microturbine. An exhaust so high-temperature, that there's no residual smell; or so the "Zero Liquid Discharge" (ZLD) website claims -- again, see http://www.thezld.com :
So, in concert, we get:
***********************************
4. Are Microturbines Hot Enough to Incinerate Poop?
The only possible sticking point is that micro turbines like the Capstone are deliberately designed to reduce the exhaust temperature typical of turbojets, from 1500 degrees F down to a more manageable 500 - 600 degrees F. See the Capstone C30 and C65 specifications at http://www.capstoneturbine.com/_docs/datasheets/C30 NatGas_331031E_lowres.pdf and http://www.capstoneturbine.com/_docs/C65 & C65-ICHP NATGAS.pdf .
My question is then this: Would 500 - 600 degrees F still prove hot enough for the macerated poop fed by a ZLD system into the exhaust of a microturbine, to be blasted into environmentally-friendly, non-odorous smithereens? In the video above, the inventor of ZLD talks about airliner jet-engines and not microturbines. But there's a big difference in size between jet-engines and Capstone microturbines; and so too, perhaps there is a big difference in exhaust temperatures? The Incinolet incinerating toilet depicted in the first few videos above operates at 1200 degree F, and yet still has an unfortunate reputation for fearsome smell.
I'm not saying that NeverEnough's proposal won't work. As suggested above, this seems like a potentially perfect solution for waste-disposal in RV's. An environmentally friendly, flush-and-forget experience that also eliminates the "yuck experience" of emptying a black-water tank.
So NeverEnough, the question then to you: do you think the exhaust of a Capstone microturbine will be hot enough, or powerful enough?
All best wishes,
Biotect
I'm not so certain that an incinerating toilet like the EcoJohn is the answer, because of the "smell factor".
***********************************
1. Incinerating Poop
I've already posted extensively on incinerating toilets earlier in the thread, on page 19, post #185, at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...pedition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page19 (standard ExPo pagination). One of the videos posted made this basic problem abundantly clear: incinerating toilets smell something fierce.
Here are the videos are again, for your entertainment. Debating toilet technologies is always just one step away from inducing the deep-belly guffaws of potty humor....
[video=youtube;lzkhwVOP8O4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzkhwVOP8O4 [/video]
See the third video in particular, on the question of smell. Yes, the narrator seems to be suffering from Incinolet-induced dementia.
Again, for a list of incinerating toilet manufacturers, see post #185.
For an excellent, very compact summary of the positives and negatives of incinerating toilets, see http://cottagelife.com/71703/diy/the-lowdown-on-incinerating-toilets . For an equally compact assessment of composting toilets, see http://cottagelife.com/71699/diy/tips-diy/the-lowdown-on-composting-toilets .
***********************************
2. Our deep-seated need to Flush-and-Forget
The central design issue that alternative toilets have to confront, is that we've been habituated to a "flush and forget" bathroom experience. No lingering long-term smells, and the poop just seems to vanish. As such, composting toilets face a major psychological hurdle, because most people can't get their minds around the fact that they are basically sitting on top of a box of poop. The design of composting toilets has then tended to focus on minimizing "yucky poop awareness":
See http://www.treehugger.com/bathroom-design/more-hot-poop-composting-toilets.html , for a very thorough survey of various models of composting toilets, none of them all that satisfactory.
This need to "flush and forget" might be modern, and merely a symptom of our over-dependence on technology.
I am inclined to think, however, that it is more deep-seated. As hunter gatherers we did not poop regularly in same place. To the contrary, we pooped far and wide, and the "environment" then took care of our decomposing our waste products. As hunter-gatherers our population density was thin enough for this to be possible. Further, I suspect that because other people's poop contains so many potentially threatening bacteria and parasites, we probably have a built-in, instinctual need to poop where no man (or woman) has pooped before. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why other people's poop tends to smell so bad, and our own not so much?
So contrary to advocates of compositing toilets, personally I don't think that there is anything psychologically "natural" about sitting on top of a box of other people's poop. "Flush and forget" may be modern, but the psychological need that it satisfies probably is not.
***********************************
3. Flush-and-Forget + Incineration
Seen in this light, what NeverEnough just proposed would constitute a truly elegant solution.
One could still pee and poop in a Sealand vacu-flush toilet that minimizes water consumption, but preserves the "flush and forget" experience. Thereby satisfying our "flush and forget" sensibilities, and so too, our Eco sensibilities regarding water usage. The poop would then find its way to a macerator, and from there it would be pulverized by the high-temperature exhaust of a microturbine. An exhaust so high-temperature, that there's no residual smell; or so the "Zero Liquid Discharge" (ZLD) website claims -- again, see http://www.thezld.com :
So, in concert, we get:
- flush and forget, courtesy of a Sealand vacu-flush toilet
- eco-friendly, because low water usage
- incineration of all waste: no more blackwater tank to empty
- eco-friendly, because no more dangerous watery sewage unleashed on a fragile environment
***********************************
4. Are Microturbines Hot Enough to Incinerate Poop?
The only possible sticking point is that micro turbines like the Capstone are deliberately designed to reduce the exhaust temperature typical of turbojets, from 1500 degrees F down to a more manageable 500 - 600 degrees F. See the Capstone C30 and C65 specifications at http://www.capstoneturbine.com/_docs/datasheets/C30 NatGas_331031E_lowres.pdf and http://www.capstoneturbine.com/_docs/C65 & C65-ICHP NATGAS.pdf .
My question is then this: Would 500 - 600 degrees F still prove hot enough for the macerated poop fed by a ZLD system into the exhaust of a microturbine, to be blasted into environmentally-friendly, non-odorous smithereens? In the video above, the inventor of ZLD talks about airliner jet-engines and not microturbines. But there's a big difference in size between jet-engines and Capstone microturbines; and so too, perhaps there is a big difference in exhaust temperatures? The Incinolet incinerating toilet depicted in the first few videos above operates at 1200 degree F, and yet still has an unfortunate reputation for fearsome smell.
I'm not saying that NeverEnough's proposal won't work. As suggested above, this seems like a potentially perfect solution for waste-disposal in RV's. An environmentally friendly, flush-and-forget experience that also eliminates the "yuck experience" of emptying a black-water tank.
So NeverEnough, the question then to you: do you think the exhaust of a Capstone microturbine will be hot enough, or powerful enough?
All best wishes,
Biotect
Last edited:
dwh
Tail-End Charlie
Eco-John sells a catalytic converter option for odor control.
And yes, the Incinolet uses electricity and operates the oven at 1200F, so it shouldn't be too tough to convert an Eco-John to electric.
The ZLD is a rehash of the old Thermasan system which was installed in GMC motorhomes in the 1970s. The manual says temp must be at least 900F.
http://www.gmcgreatlakers.org/GMCGr.../Thermasan-System/Pages795-800 from X7425.pdf
And yes, the Incinolet uses electricity and operates the oven at 1200F, so it shouldn't be too tough to convert an Eco-John to electric.
The ZLD is a rehash of the old Thermasan system which was installed in GMC motorhomes in the 1970s. The manual says temp must be at least 900F.
http://www.gmcgreatlakers.org/GMCGr.../Thermasan-System/Pages795-800 from X7425.pdf
dwh
Tail-End Charlie
My main gripe with the macerating/pumping into the exhaust thing, is that I DON'T wanna have to clean that system out and fix it when it breaks. I'm not squeamish about the waste (I was a single father - changed a bunch of diapers), I'd just rather not if I can avoid it.
I would also prefer to not have to deal with a finicky burner arrangement, so in my opinion, electric is the way to go.
But, I also don't like the straight-drop incinerating toilet design.
Thus, electric Eco-John w/catalytic converter looks to me like the all-around best solution. Main drawback - even the small one is huge.
I would also prefer to not have to deal with a finicky burner arrangement, so in my opinion, electric is the way to go.
But, I also don't like the straight-drop incinerating toilet design.
Thus, electric Eco-John w/catalytic converter looks to me like the all-around best solution. Main drawback - even the small one is huge.
biotect
Designer
dwh,
Thanks for the reprise regarding Eco-John.
I took a second look at the product literature, and the Eco-John does seem a good deal more sophisticated than the Incinolet. For instance, the Eco-John removes the poop from immediately underneath, before incineration, and incineration takes place well behind the bowl area:
I hadn't realized that Eco-John is substantially different from Incinolet in this regard.
Eco-John also seems very "odor conscious" (e.g. the catalytic convertor on the chimney), and Eco-John seems wiling to custom-fabricate a toilet system suited to customer specifications. See http://ecojohn.com/ecojohn_sr.html , http://ecojohn.com/exploration_camp.html , http://ecojohn.com/download.html , http://ecojohn.com/catalog/ECOJOHN_SR_SERIES.pdf , and http://ecojohn.com/catalog/ECOJOHN-containerized-waste-combustion-system.pdf . Some of the more complicated systems that Eco-John provides combine the best of "flush-and-forget" with incineration:
Eco-John even sells a water-saving vacuum-flush toilet as a component of this more complicated system (see below). So some kind of Eco-John system does seem like it might be the best solution, apart from size.
Given Eco-John's willingness to custom-manufacture, perhaps for the right price they'd be willing to design a very compact RV system that runs completely off electricity instead of diesel, and that combines "flush-and-forget" with an incinerator located underneath the toilet's floor-level, where more space might be available? The most relevant PDFs here are http://ecojohn.com/catalog/ECOJOHN_WC_SERIES.pdf and http://ecojohn.com/catalog/Mobile_Restroom_Catalog.pdf :
Eco-John's smallest stand-alone "off-the-shelf" incinerator is the WC5, which measures 27 inches x 29 inches x 39 inches, and weighs 200 lbs. That's 12 cubic feet, or 340 liters. Sure, that's more volume than the two blackwater tanks on the Doleoni MAN-KAT pictured earlier in the thread, which sum to 260 liters -- 80 liters more:
But 260 liters of water weighs 269 kg, or about 570 pounds, whereas the WC5 incinerator weighs 200 lbs. So in that sense even a non-custom Eco-John WC5 incinerator might make more sense than the two blackwater tanks that the Doleoni carries. On the other hand, granted, the Doleoni's tank capacities are on the large end of things. For instance, the Doleoni also carries the absolute maximum of 1500 liters of fuel.
By way of contrast, one of the largest 6x6 motorhomes made by UniCat has a sewage tank that's still "only" 158 liters -- see http://www.unicat.com/ua-en/info/EX70HDM-MBActros6x6.php . Another TGA-based 6x6 Unicat has a sewage tank that's 80 liters -- see http://www.unicat.net/pdf/EX70HD2M-MANTGA6x6-exposee-en.pdf . And even UniCat's monster-sized 8x8 has a sewage tank that's 100 liters, although it carries 1000 liters of fresh water -- see http://www.unicat.com/ua-en/info/MXXL24AH.php and http://www.unicat.com/pdf/UNICAT-MXXL24AH-MAN8x8-en-es.pdf .
Presumably a greywater tank would still be necessary, to recycle shower water (for instance) to flush the toilet.
In any case, this EcoJohn incinerating solution clearly won't be an option for a smaller motorhome, nor for a motorhome that is not carrying lots of fuel, or that does not have a large solar array and battery system that might provide plenty of electricity. But for a large, 6x6 hybrid expedition motorhome equipped with a C65 Capstone microturbine and a huge solar array, perhaps this begins to make sense.
There is also the consideration that simply holding sewage in a blackwater in a tank does not consume energy. Whereas incinerating sewage does.....
But again, many thanks for insisting again on Eco-John. It was well worth a second look.
All best wishes,
Biotect
Thanks for the reprise regarding Eco-John.
I took a second look at the product literature, and the Eco-John does seem a good deal more sophisticated than the Incinolet. For instance, the Eco-John removes the poop from immediately underneath, before incineration, and incineration takes place well behind the bowl area:
I hadn't realized that Eco-John is substantially different from Incinolet in this regard.
Eco-John also seems very "odor conscious" (e.g. the catalytic convertor on the chimney), and Eco-John seems wiling to custom-fabricate a toilet system suited to customer specifications. See http://ecojohn.com/ecojohn_sr.html , http://ecojohn.com/exploration_camp.html , http://ecojohn.com/download.html , http://ecojohn.com/catalog/ECOJOHN_SR_SERIES.pdf , and http://ecojohn.com/catalog/ECOJOHN-containerized-waste-combustion-system.pdf . Some of the more complicated systems that Eco-John provides combine the best of "flush-and-forget" with incineration:
Eco-John even sells a water-saving vacuum-flush toilet as a component of this more complicated system (see below). So some kind of Eco-John system does seem like it might be the best solution, apart from size.
Given Eco-John's willingness to custom-manufacture, perhaps for the right price they'd be willing to design a very compact RV system that runs completely off electricity instead of diesel, and that combines "flush-and-forget" with an incinerator located underneath the toilet's floor-level, where more space might be available? The most relevant PDFs here are http://ecojohn.com/catalog/ECOJOHN_WC_SERIES.pdf and http://ecojohn.com/catalog/Mobile_Restroom_Catalog.pdf :
Eco-John's smallest stand-alone "off-the-shelf" incinerator is the WC5, which measures 27 inches x 29 inches x 39 inches, and weighs 200 lbs. That's 12 cubic feet, or 340 liters. Sure, that's more volume than the two blackwater tanks on the Doleoni MAN-KAT pictured earlier in the thread, which sum to 260 liters -- 80 liters more:
- Foul sewage collection tank (170 liters), 4mm stainless steel, and two discharge systems – spherical pneumatic valve and/or macerator pump
- Foul sewage additional collection tank (90 liters), 4mm stainless steel and a spherical pneumatic valve discharge system
But 260 liters of water weighs 269 kg, or about 570 pounds, whereas the WC5 incinerator weighs 200 lbs. So in that sense even a non-custom Eco-John WC5 incinerator might make more sense than the two blackwater tanks that the Doleoni carries. On the other hand, granted, the Doleoni's tank capacities are on the large end of things. For instance, the Doleoni also carries the absolute maximum of 1500 liters of fuel.
By way of contrast, one of the largest 6x6 motorhomes made by UniCat has a sewage tank that's still "only" 158 liters -- see http://www.unicat.com/ua-en/info/EX70HDM-MBActros6x6.php . Another TGA-based 6x6 Unicat has a sewage tank that's 80 liters -- see http://www.unicat.net/pdf/EX70HD2M-MANTGA6x6-exposee-en.pdf . And even UniCat's monster-sized 8x8 has a sewage tank that's 100 liters, although it carries 1000 liters of fresh water -- see http://www.unicat.com/ua-en/info/MXXL24AH.php and http://www.unicat.com/pdf/UNICAT-MXXL24AH-MAN8x8-en-es.pdf .
Presumably a greywater tank would still be necessary, to recycle shower water (for instance) to flush the toilet.
In any case, this EcoJohn incinerating solution clearly won't be an option for a smaller motorhome, nor for a motorhome that is not carrying lots of fuel, or that does not have a large solar array and battery system that might provide plenty of electricity. But for a large, 6x6 hybrid expedition motorhome equipped with a C65 Capstone microturbine and a huge solar array, perhaps this begins to make sense.
There is also the consideration that simply holding sewage in a blackwater in a tank does not consume energy. Whereas incinerating sewage does.....
But again, many thanks for insisting again on Eco-John. It was well worth a second look.
All best wishes,
Biotect
Last edited:
dwh
Tail-End Charlie
Yea. I think I'd go for filtering the greywater and dumping it back into the freshwater tank. That's not as yucky as it sounds, since I'd have some sort of freshwater filter anyway for drinking water, so a basic filter system for drawing water out of the tank for such things as cracking into fuel, another filter system for drawing water out of the tank for human use, and yet a third filter system for recycling grey back into white.
"Human use" would include whatever water comes into contact with a human, such as drinking, cooking and washing. I've bathed in plenty of oceans, lakes and icy mountain streams, and it's a lot of fun, but if I'm gonna build a truck, I might as well keep the local little creepies out of my eyes and other orifices. Water filters are good for thousands of gallons, so it's not like the human use filters would have to be replaced all that often. (And don't forget the UV lights in the freshwater tank to go along with the spoonful of chlorine you add when you get water locally.)
So pull the water from the tank first though the "utility use" (fuel and/or washing the truck/moto/hosing the sludge out of the grey tank/whatever) filter set, then split it and send the other line to the "whole house human use" filter set for <everything inside of the cabin> as well as probably an outdoor shower/hand washing station. Since the toilet is inside the cabin, and the Eco-John doesn't use much water, for simplicity I'd just feed it some of the human use water that is already plumbed into the cabin.
I don't see electricity as much of an issue. Consider that a normal truck (with say, a diesel engine) has a big alternator already. Not that big a deal to add a second (or larger, or both) alternator if needed, and also not that big a deal to rig it to do a decent job of battery charging. So in that case, electricity is really a non-issue. Now, you might want to load-shift and only run the incinerator when the main engine is running, but that's okay - even the small Eco-John has a 3.5 gallon tank, so you could probably get by running a full incineration cycle (or two or three one after another) once every day or two.
For a hybrid with on-board power generation (say a hydrogen turbine or a small diesel), again electricity won't be a big issue. Sure, you'll consume a couple of kwh/day running the incinerator, but it's not going to be a deal breaker if you've engineered plenty of reserve capacity into the system. And you could easily consume just as much cooking breakfast.
Also consider that many solar charge controllers have a "load" connection (generally a low-voltage disconnect with a low amp rating). The Midnite Classic is designed to be used as either a solar or small wind charge controller and can control a "dump load". You don't need a dump load for solar like you do for wind, but if you've got the capability, might as well use it for load shifting. You could use the dump load ability to control a relay which only enables certain things (UV in the water tanks, toilet incinerator, pumping grey into white) AFTER the battery bank is topped off. In the case of solar, you'd possibly be using EXCESS power which would otherwise remain unharvested due to the battery bank being full.
------------------------------
While we're on the subject of toilets/water/lavatories/heads/whatever, I'll add some other things to consider...
In my opinion, Euro designs tend to make the lavatory/shower too small. The theory is that you don't spend all that much time in there. And for a compact, occasional use rig, that's okay.
But...for a rig to spend a year or more living in, I want that time to be *quality* time. I want to be comfortable in the "reading room" (actually, being a lifelong library rat who "haunts the stacks", I tend to think of it as my own private carrel
) and I want plenty of elbow room in the shower. Not only that, I like a seat in a shower, so I can sit down and play with my tootsies. I would KILL for a Japanese style hot tub like Cap'n Cuthbert installed in his Shachagra truck.The Eco-John looks to be nearly waterproof. Shouldn't be a big deal to take it another step and make it in fact waterproof. NICE! Now I can install a big drain pan in front of the toilet (deep as per Stephen Stewart's recommendations), and essentially add all that Eco-John space to my shower elbow room - AND I've got my place to sit and play with my tootsies.
If it has a door (it better, I don't want a curtain on the crapper in a high-zoot rig), then I can even add a steam unit, such as a Mr. Steam.
Oh yea! Talk about quality time. Stephen Stewart, somewhere in his musings, mentions something to the effect of, "grubby world travelers". I certainly know that feeling. It's *difficult* to get/feel really clean with a limited water supply. Spending a half-hour or so steaming first, THEN doing the "navy shower" procedure would make all the difference in the world. And it sure would be nice to be able to come in out of the cold, and hop in the steam bath (or vice versa if you're a northern type
).Add a second heating loop off the hot-water thermal mass, with its own fan and thermostat, and you can also turn the shower into a "hot box" or "drying room" (repeat after me boys and girls, "it's not just a steam bath, it's also a sauna bath"). Now you can just stick your muddy boots and soaking wet coat in there and crank up the thermostat and in the morning, you've got nice warm and dry gear. Getting up and out in the cold when you're already cold is hard, but if you're nice and toasty, then it's easy to "love the smell of frozen wasteland in the morning".
This is also why I favor making the entry door go *through* the lavatory. That way the lavatory can serve as a "mud room". And hey, look(!), there's a nice seat to sit on and take off your muddy boots and socks and play with your frozen tootsies.
Now we're talking about multi-use, positive-sum win/win and all that.
Install the Eco-John with its back against an exterior wall, and you can have a hatch which allows all the messy bits of servicing (or rebuilding) the thing to be handled OUTSIDE the cabin. And any mess that does end up inside (water splashes in amazing ways - just ask anyone who has had to clean the bathroom where boys and men have been standing around "talking to the boss"), can be easily hosed down the drain.
Another thing to consider, again from Stephen Stewart, is that many world travelers end up dumping their black water tanks wherever they can. Often that ends up being in the "local sewage system" - i.e., a ditch by the side of the road. Well...they do say, "when in Rome", but honestly, I'd rather not if I don't have to.