Companion: Storing Energy, Introducing a "Cell", a Soil Factory

SpaceNut · 2023-06-14 14:27:26

This topic is offered for posts that related to the primary topic, but which might not be suitable for the topic itself.

This is a Newmars wiki development process for creation of Internal wiki topics and process.

Examples would be suggestions for corrections of facts in a post.

The author of the post in the primary topic is responsible for making the needed adjustments.

Hopefully the end goal is to have a written academic paper for this topic.

The first of several mission have built the intended structure with all devices created and built to make life sustainable conditions for the buildup.

The wiki topic is here at Index» Life support systems» Proposal: Storing Energy, Introducing a "Cell", a Soil Factory on Mars

The creation of this topic is to discuss Proposal: Storing Energy, Introducing a "Cell", a Soil Factory on Mars

Steve Stewart, will evaluate our comments here on the topics adjustments will be made by that wiki owner if they see fit that we would like to see if possible and or plausible in the wiki's creation page.

Steve is proposing a narrow topic with this INDEX located in first post.

Typical plans for Mars small of large crews start with build up phases to achieve the cell goals of being able to support the crew that remains.

Format of these words from the initial topic by Oldfart1939.

Like all topics and development is Leadership is of great communications importance with skills and abilities to do lots of data management. They will be tasked with work assignments and difference resolution. There needs to be a final authority when differences of opinion arise between crew members. The team leader and /or assistant leader will be involved in outside supervision and participation in the labor pool.
A team of Geologist triad: They will be tasked with collection of samples and determination of WHERE to put the permanent habitation modules. Do studies of weight bearing capabilities of potential landing sites and layout of the landing complex. Search for water. The geologist and planetary science triad will be mapping and collecting samples but could be augmented by the other scientists on occasion.
A Construction and maintenance triads; there will be 2 of these because they will be the most important set of tasks needed to keep everyone else alive. Maintain the rovers, Set up a solar farm or a nuclear reactor system. Any smaller size and we're inviting work overload by mission planners. They can also be in charge of any biological/gardening projects and shouldn't be adverse, to getting Mars "dirt: under their fingernails. There will be crews from the construction triads will be outside doing construction or equipment maintenance most of the time. As much as the planners would like, everyone going needs some R & R time where there are no (or alt least minimal) demands on their time.
The Scientist triad: a good biologist and microscopists to examine samples looking for signs of life, past and present; a chemist with skills in elemental analysis to determine the contents of various samples returned by the geologist triad. A molecular biologist with instrumentation skills (polarimetry, gas chromatography, HPLC, and other skills needed to analyze samples for signs of life).
Medical triad: One Surgeon, one GP, cross trained as a dentist, and one nurse with Nurse Practitioner certification. One member from each triad should be cross trained as a vehicle driver, and the medical triad should be involved there as well. They won't be treating such things as "common colds," since the extreme pre-flight precautions should preclude anything being brought along from Earth w/r certain diseases. They are there for emergencies and monitoring the vital signs of all the team members.
Here's a short list of priorities:
(1) Stay alive and healthy
(2) Do the primary tasks assigned
(3) Make the efforts pay off through establishment of a permanent outpost and habitation center for future visits that pave the way for colonization.
(4) Do some significant exploration and make finding water the top priority
(5) Return home safely

This topic is not about available launch capacity anymore with the advent of Elon Musk's Starship designs. It's sort of the right group size that we tend to have for a gathering of friends at a home. Anything larger and the personal interactions simply aren't there.

from post 2 of wiki

Steve Stewart has a view the first Martian base as having a minimal crew of less than 10 people then see the base growing to 20 people, later 30, eventually 50, and so on.

SpaceNut · 2023-06-14 14:39:37

This may help as well

Chat organized topic structure.

Project Objective: Clearly define the objective of the project. What do you aim to achieve by the end of the project? In your example, the objective might be to?
Scope: Determine the boundaries and extent of the project. What is included and excluded from the project? This helps to set realistic expectations and avoid scope creep.
Deliverables: Identify the tangible or intangible outputs that will be produced as a result of the project. For the furnace removal project, the deliverable would be the successful?
Timeline: Create a timeline or schedule that outlines the project's key milestones and deadlines. This helps to track progress and ensure timely completion of tasks.
Resources: Identify the resources required to execute the project. This includes any equipment, tools, materials, or expertise needed. For the project, you might need appropriate safety equipment, tools for disassembly, and potentially professional assistance.
Risk Assessment: Identify potential risks and obstacles that may impact the project's success. Assess the likelihood and potential impact of each risk, and develop mitigation strategies to address them.
Communication: Establish a communication plan to ensure effective and regular communication among project team members. Determine how progress updates, setbacks, and challenges will be reported and shared.
Progress Tracking: Implement a system to monitor and track project progress. This can be as simple as a checklist or a more sophisticated project management tool. Regularly review and update the progress to ensure the project stays on track.
Lessons Learned: Encourage individuals to reflect on their projects and document lessons learned. This enables continuous improvement and knowledge sharing among team members.
Celebrate Success: Acknowledge and celebrate the successful completion of projects. This fosters a sense of achievement and motivation for future endeavors.

All of my other off topic posts were totally removed without back up.

All posts made by others should be copied after this and then removed from the wiki page when others have time to do so.

SpaceNut · 2023-06-14 17:05:25

post 2 of topic kilowatt reactor from the demonstrator to get 10Kw outs and 30K are radiated by the system to space. So, to get 30Kw electrical output the reactor will be sending 90kw of waste heat to space that at this point cannot be retrieved.

Adding in other sources such as solar that have no storage battery and no grid tie'ng system does not add to peak capability as you must also sync the ac signals to the grid tie system for the dc source that stored the energy to be able to give peak draw capability.
Stating saving an amount without any limitations that the storage device will have, is more hand waving.

Storing AC is done by converting it and even that possibility is not stated in any form or type of store that is possible.

You cannot store watts of AC energy directly as they are a measurement of energy voltage and currents.

Yes, stored energy in a battery can be added to the overall sum for peak wattage use as grid tied together.

When an you look at the pretty flow diagrams and you question how the power types are connected and balanced between units you find a DC to AC convertor that cannot provide the power to the second then there is a problem.

There is also another problem with that type of invertor in the CE5 as you cannot grid tie them together as they are not in phase with each other to get higher levels of power. This problem only gets higher with more mismatch systems that require other AC or DC sources that you do not have. Also, the second flow has mechanical energy and this unit does not have any as it's a pressure movement flow rate system.

There is no storage tanks for any of these or the equipment to perform the function and not enough power of the correct format to make them work at a balanced rate so as to satisfy the needs of the cell. With the lean jet line concept that is being want from lean engineering.

I believe that I calculated to produce 5 kw you need a flow rate of 8 cu ft of methane a minute of compressed liquid.
So how large is the storage of fuel and replenishment rate?

Oh and #8 is exactly what i just gave in,

Lean Concepts and the 8 Wastes
1 Overproduction Designing or supporting a product or service no one wants is waste. ...
2 Non-Value Added Processes In broad terms, non-value added processing is anything that adds unnecessary steps to any procedure. ...
3 Motion Minimizing energy and time helps minimize waste. ...
4 Transportation ...
5 Inventory ...
6 Defects ...
7 Waiting ...
8 Unused Employee Creativity ...

Most people think time is a lean concept but in actuality not, it is a symptom of a problem. Also in a "Kanbanize" system of lean a small undocumented change of practice, policy or procedures means later failure as time goes on.

When an you look at the pretty flow diagrams and you question how the power types are connected and balanced between units you find a DC to AC convertor that cannot provide the power to the second then there is a problem. There is also another problem with that type of invertor in the CE5 as you cannot grid tie them together as they are not in phase with each other to get higher levels of power. This problem only gets higher with more mismatch systems that require other AC or DC sources that you do not have. Also, the second flow has mechanical energy and this unit does not have any as it's a pressure movement flow rate system.

There is also with just these two systems other mismatches to use the green cell room as storage of co2 as the concentration will cause the plants to die from too high of a level for the plants. That same concentration rise comes from a unit that outputs it at a higher rate than we can convert with the other as it must be first extracted, compressed and cooled before the Sabatier can be used. The same hold true for the output of the water which is also with no storage to all for the electrolysis as well as to compress it as well for creating methane in the super-hot chamber of the reactor.

Then to not care about the difference in efficiency of operation just makes the need for replacement energy and gases plus equipment just further compounds the issue.

There is no storage tanks for any of these or the equipment to perform the function and not enough power of the correct format to make them work at a balanced rate so as to satisfy the needs of the cell. With the lean jet line concept that is being want from lean engineering.

SpaceNut · 2023-06-14 17:24:43

The first item fails as there is no starter tank of water, natural gas source or power for the system to work as it gets clogged on fuel cycle use of natural gas due to carbon content for the fuel cell. Since the reformer needs steam to remove the carbon and that requires power also to make happen.

3 strike you are done with what is being portraid as perpetual energy storage system that has no losses, no storage, toxic plant atmospher ect....

What is there is in need of modifying as we do know the rate of natural gas required at 8 cu ft o

Converting between cubic feet of gas and liquid gallons, keeping temperature constant helps decode typical gas meter readings given in cubic feet. 1 gallon of LP gas C 3 H 8 = 4.20 lbs (at 60 degF) and contains 8.66 cu. ft. per pound 4.20 pounds x 8.66 cu. ft./pound = 36 cubic feet of gas (at 60°F) per gallon of LPG

The typical 25lb tank holds 20 lbs of fuel for use.

There is a mismatch between these 2 different processes as the initial cannot supply the energy for the second as its going to need a source of hydrogen from the water from the first to electrolyze for the source of hydrogen for the input of the Sabatier chamber.

There is still no source for the co2 needed for the Sabatier under pressure plus liquefied and that is true for the hydrogen as well for that unit to work.

The not used co2 becomes some CO with the remaining co2 and that would be toxic to humans if not exiting the habitat cells.

The exiting methane needs to be cooled and pressurized for use.

Of course, later posts contain outside atmosphere being vacuum pumped into the plant cell, but you cannot use that since its going to be toxic for the plants.

There is also with just these two systems other mismatches to use the green cell room as storage of co2 as the concentration will cause the plants to die from too high of a level for the plants. That same concentration rise comes from a unit that outputs it at a higher rate than we can convert with the other as it must be first extracted, compressed and cooled before the Sabatier can be used. The same hold true for the output of the water which is also with no storage to all for the electrolysis as well as to compress it as well for creating methane in the super-hot chamber of the reactor.

SpaceNut · 2023-06-14 17:37:03

post indicates burning fuel with oxygen but leaves with requiring more collection from the vacuum pump for co2 to make oxygen for it to create heat.

That exhaust means we need a capture system rather than sending it not the cell or for wasting it. There is also a heat loss in the exhaust as well.

The heat loss of electrolysis of water is a problem as it keeps energy requirement increasing with no values of all of these summing up to prove size of reactor sources of energy. If we had stored heat, we could apply it too this process to lower the electrical required. Non has been purposed.

A kilowatt reactor is on its producing pretty much full power unless we control its heat output from the nuclear heat unit's section.

SpaceNut · 2023-06-14 17:37:37

Shows no storage amounts, no flow or processing rates nor electrical rates required to pump or condense water from steam or from vapor in the air in the cell.

This is closer to a complete systems level diagram of wiring.

SpaceNut · 2023-06-14 17:45:27

Here is the unit that would be for other noted content.

The Sabatier requires a heat source to elevate the reaction in the chamber 400'c.

Trying to couple the heat from a fuel cell would mean building a basically different unit. Than the planned separate ones being placed into the process.

Fuel cells operate at quite a bit lower temperatures.

While these cells could be highly promising energy solutions, most of them can only operate at limited temperature ranges, such as 80 to 90 degrees Celsius or 140 to 180 degrees Fahrenheit.

New fuel cells that can operate at temperatures between -20 to 200°C

The temperature of Sabatier is 400 c plus and there is no heat storage in any of the units to collect the loss with such as the Limestone battery that we are working on. Yes, that heat can become power later if desired but its going to need thermal bottle to reduce heat loss over time and a working fluid plus to make that energy as electricity of mixed with colder working fluid to regulate heating being created from the unit's storage.

SpaceNut · 2023-06-14 18:30:57

Of course, any Martian air being processed is going to what a gas separation unit to make use of the energy used to get the most of it.

Marspedia-Martian_atmospheric_processing_%281%29.png

Outside Mars air is cold during the night and will warm during the day so collected co2 will not go directly into the cells and will be filtered of dust as early as possible.

But cell air and habitat air are not well defined in element content or pressures.

posts Indicated that this is need for cell working which means that there is one or the other as issues. Also, a furnace as it relates to putting co2 and heat back into the room is not something that we even do in our homes for several reasons.

SpaceNut · 2023-06-14 19:03:33

This room is duplicated to get to a backup system arrangement pf 3 or more as required as crew size grows.

Lighting requirements of amount and energy requirements to keep on for normal food growth in the control food growth chambers are lacking for the shelves and each of the three rooms to cover the intensity needs for each crop type that will require different levels of lighting needs.

Sure, the size of the room matters as it's a simple flow storage of some things such as air content but it's not the bulk storage that this system will need.

Will come back to volume and numbers of content later after reading and researching grow lighting?

On Mars, human waste could be thermophilically composted with organic matter and then used as fertilizer on plants that are not in the food category. Recycling human waste worked for the Maya's for ten millenniums and it will work on Mars.

Even though composting kills pathogens and the composted waste is not used on plants grown for food, there still needs to be a system in place that defends against pathogens in the soil.

This is why human waste needs to be recycled back into the soil. If human waste is not recycled, whatever Essential Elements are contained in the waste, such as phosphorus, potassium, calcium, chlorine, sodium, magnesium, iodine, sulfur, etc, these elements will need to be replenished.

SpaceNut · 2023-06-14 19:07:26

here is the Nasa growth chamber content.

The growing of food requires many aspects to make a mass change as we need to understand the method of growing, food types that we are replacing, energy demand by the system, need for water and fertilizers ect.
To survive on Mars, we need a 'technology that replaces what the Earth does.' This tube might be NASA's best hope.

5af1cf926598e02b008b45a2?width=1000&format=jpeg&auto=webp

The Mars Lunar Greenhouse is designed to supply 100% of the air and 50% of the food an astronaut needs for 2 years.

Article indicates that its sized for 1 person...

The prototype involves an inflatable, deploy-able greenhouse to support plant and crop production for nutrition, air revitalization, water recycling and waste recycling. The process is called a bio-regenerative life support system. The design is based on underground use with no natural lighting which comes collapse as small as possible and needs erecting to make the structure.

Mars-Lunar Greenhouse (M-LGH). Funded by NASA Ralph Steckler Program, our team has designed and constructed a set of four cylindrical innovative 5.5 m (18 ft) long by 1.8 m (7 ft) diameter membrane M-LGHs with a cable-based hydroponic crop production system in a controlled environment that exhibits a high degree of future Lunar and/or Mars mission fidelity.

https://ag.arizona.edu/lunargreenhouse/

https://cals.arizona.edu/lunargreenhouse/MidReviews.htm

https://cals.arizona.edu/lunargreenhous … omelli.pdf

Bioregenerative Life Support
• Per Person Basis
• 0.84 kg/day O2
• 3.9 kg/day H2O
• 50% of 11.8 MJ/day [BVAD Values, 2006]
•2000 Cal/day diet
•Buried habitat
•Six month crew change duration
•Solar for energy supply
•Autonomous deployment

Average daily water consumption 25.7 L day-1
Average daily CO2 consumption 0.22 kg day-1
Average daily elec. power consumption 100.3 kWh day-1 (361 MJ)

24 ± 4 g biomass (ww) per kWh, or
(83 g biomass (ww) per MJ)
edible + non-edible biomass

35.9 min day-1 labor use for operations

SpaceNut · 2023-06-14 20:40:06

6, SMC water-jacketed, 1000W high pressure sodium (HPS) lamps.

Nutrient solution (modified one-half strength Hoaglands solution)
6.0 pH and 1.8 mS cm-1 EC for the lettuce and strawberry,
6.5 pH and 1.8 EC for the sweet potato and tomato.
In situ plant biomass continually monitored and evaluated for intervals of 7 or 14 days of growth,

Of course the goals of a greenhouse will vary in location, duration of growing and more so its important to not confuse how and when its used.

https://www.esi.utexas.edu/files/089-Le … n-Mars.pdf

https://view.ceros.com/business-insider … ktop-2/p/1

SpaceNut · 2023-06-14 20:50:06

Of course the goals of a greenhouse will vary in location, duration of growing and more so its important to not confuse how and when its used.

https://www.esi.utexas.edu/files/089-Le … n-Mars.pdf

https://view.ceros.com/business-insider … ktop-2/p/1

SpaceNut · 2023-06-14 21:04:23

This is a very much needed aspect of the cell and living space concept.

Part of the issues for pathogen removal from recycling human and other waste

composting

SpaceNut · 2023-06-14 21:06:46

The cell concept is a life support system that is not fully closed as we are making use of mars atmosphere and water resources to supplement when we require.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlle … ort_system

List are just some of those trials

https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/13129
Contains specifics of Closed Ecological Life Support Systems

of course lots of books
https://link.springer.com/referencework … 75-2_103-1

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/201 … hment=true
Life Support Goals Including High Closure and Low Mass Should Be Reconsidered Using Systems Analysis

https://ttu-ir.tdl.org/bitstream/handle … sequence=1
Bio-Regenerative Life Support Systems Functional Stability and Limitations, a Theoretical Modeling Approach

Which brings up what are we growing and how much as crops take different time to maturity and germination. Not to mention we need to understand how much oxygen is given off by them.

https://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/livin … rming.html

https://www.melissafoundation.org/page/ … terization

SpaceNut · 2023-06-14 21:07:57

still many more posts to analyze.

SpaceNut · 2023-06-14 21:08:25

still many more posts to analyze.

SpaceNut · 2023-06-14 21:08:31

still many more posts to analyze.

Steve Stewart · 2023-06-18 16:52:34

SpaceNut,
At the beginning of post#1 of this thread I'm not clear on what it is you are proposing. What exactly is the "NewMars Wiki" ? Are you proposing having a Wiki-like section on this forum? Are there any other entries in the "NewMars Wiki" or is my proposal the first? Can you elaborate on this? I realize that the Mars Society has a Wiki-like web-site called Marspedia

In post#1 of this thread you stated "from post 2 of wiki". It looks like you are referring to post#2 of my proposal. Would it not be simpler, and a bit more clearer, to have stated "In post#2 of Steve Stewart proposal Storing Energy, Introducing a "Cell" and a Soil Factory on Mars he defines the scope of his proposal as being a minimal base of less than 10 people then growing from there" ?

It looks like you have some questions/criticism about my proposal. I'd be glad to answer any questions from you or anyone else. I would like for everyone to realize I am approachable. I don't want anyone to be afraid of asking questions because they think they'll be criticized. Or an all out argument/brawl, which seems to happen often on this forum. Everyone needs to realize that arguing and criticism accomplishes nothing. Leadership is about knowing how to work through people not at people. For anyone reading this I highly recommend the book Leadership 101 by John C Maxwell.

Leadership isn't just for managers, everyone needs leadership skills, as John Maxwell clearly explains in several of his books. As Lee Iacocca said "You can have brilliant ideas, but if you can't get them across, your ideas won't get you anywhere."

Steve Stewart · 2023-06-18 16:54:16

The proposal I wrote should be viewed as a white paper, or a conceptual plan. The idea is to paint a picture of an overall vision/idea that someone has. Providing too much detail creates clutter, and makes the proposal harder to understand. I do have more detail for anyone who asks. I'll do my best to read between the lines of comments on this thread and answer questions.

SpaceNut,
As an example of a conceptual drawing lets use some creativity. Lets suppose that you and I are living in the early 1890's. This is a time before Henry Ford built his first motorized car, the quadricycle in 1896.

You come to me with a drawing of an idea you have. You have a sketch of something you call a "Horseless carriage." You tell me this "carriage" has something you call an "engine." The word "engine" is something I have never heard before. You tell me this "engine" thing is capable of replacing a horse by making the carriage move forward down the road. You try to explain to me how a 4-cycle engine works. So you hand me the (conceptual drawing) below, that illustrates the 4 cycles of a 4-cycle engine.

Figure 19.1 Cycles of a 4-stroke engine (conceptual drawing)

I've never seen anything like this before. Here is a list of my response to your drawing:

1) The picture doesn't show how air and fuel are mixed. It also doesn't show any air tanks or any fuel tanks.

2) You're telling me that this horseless carriage has an engine that has a series of explosions. You can't have explosions on a carriage, it would scare the horses.

3) I heard from a reliable source that pistons are round. Yet the pistons you show in your diagram are square.

4) You're showing a spark plug firing yet you do not show any source of electricity to make the spark. You also don't identify if this electricity as being AC or DC. You also don't show the source of where this energy is coming from.

5) The wheels on a carriage go round and round, in a rotary motion. To be compatible will the wheels the engine will need to create a rotary motion, and yet the piston that you're showing me has red arrows pointing up and down. An up and down motion is not a rotary motion.

6) You're proposing a series of explosion inside of this thing you call an "engine" it will quickly overheat. You show no method of dealing with all of this heat, and you don't specify what materials are required to handle this much heat. Most things I've seen are made from wood, and wood won't work because it will burn.

7) In order for this contraption you call an "engine" to work it's going to have to be air tight. Yet you are showing three moving parts inside of what needs to be a sealed air tight compartment. You offer no explanation as to how a piston moving up and down can hold this kind of air pressure, and offer no explanation how valves that move up and down can hold this kind of extreme pressure.

8) With all of the moving parts you are going to need some type of lubrication to keep the parts from wearing out immediately. This diagram does not show any kind of lubrication system.

9) The air coming into the cylinder will need to be filtered. This diagram does not show any type of air filter for the air coming into the cylinder.

10) This thing you call an "engine" will need some type of fuel source in order to work. You have not specified if this "engine thing" burns kerosene, gasoline, or diesel fuel. Here in the 1890's the only fuel source that's available for most people is kerosene, and you keep mentioning gasoline. There is no place to buy gasoline in the 1890s, there's no such thing as what you call a "gas station".

11) There is no way this thing you call an "engine" will work. The engine will need to be running in order to go through the four cycles you describe. It's not until after the four cycles are complete, probably several times, before the engine is running. This is a catch-22 that prevents this thing from ever working. You haven't provided any way of starting this process.

12) This process requires fuel and nowhere in this diagram do I see a fuel tank. The moving parts in this contraption will need to be lubricated and I don't see any lubrication, such as oil, and I don't see anywhere in this diagram where oil is being stored. As I said before this thing will overheat unless it's being cooled somehow. Water could be used to cool this thing but nowhere in the diagram is there a water tank.

13) Where is the water used for cooling stored? What happens in winter time? If you're using water to cool this thing, how do you keep the water from freezing? And how do you move water through this thing? If the water sets in one place it will boil away. I don't see anything that looks like a pump. Have you done any calculations on how much energy a water pump would use? The four cycles you're showing me will have to create enough energy to drive some sort of water pump. This requires a balance and I don't believe this system is balanced.

Have I made my point? Do we now understand what is meant by a conceptual drawing?

Last edited by Steve Stewart (2023-06-18 17:05:46)

Steve Stewart · 2023-06-18 16:55:30

When anyone is going through an explanation of anything, it has to come in steps. First we crawl, then we walk, then we run. These things must be followed in order, and NONE of the steps can be skipped. We cannot walk until we learn how to crawl. We cannot run until we learn how to walk.

In my proposal I am introducing things in a set order. In post#3 of my proposal, I introduced a device that was referred to as the Clearedge5(c). In post#3 I said and I quote:

Post#3 Steve Stewart wrote:
Even though the CE5 is no longer produced, its principles of operation can be used on Mars.

My intentions of post#3 of my proposal, was to introduce a device that worked on the same principle as the CE5, not on a verbatim copy of the CE5. My intent was that on Mars we had our own version of the CE5. My intent was to show that it's possible to release chemical energy stored as methane, without having to burn methane. More about the CE5 in a moment.

In the next post, post#4, I then introduced something I call The Methane-Oxygen Cycle. I had to introduce the principles of operation of the CE5 first, before I could show how to use it in The Methane-Oxygen Cycle. If I would have introduced The Methane-Oxygen Cycle first before talking about the operation principles of the CE5, I would be guilty putting the carriage in front of the horse. First we crawl, then we walk, then we run.

In post#4 I showed a closed loop version of The Methane-Oxygen Cycle. I have no intention of using a closed loop version of The Methane-Oxygen Cycle anywhere on Mars. The reason I showed the closed loop version first, is because it's simpler than the open loop version. I showed the closed loop version first, so that the process can be studied until it is understood. Once the closed loop version is understood, it's time to move on to a more complicated version, the open loop version, described in post#5. First we crawl, then we walk, then we run. These steps cannot be skipped.

In post#6 I seemingly head off in a totally different direction. I start by talking about a subject that doesn't seem to have anything to do with energy storage or The Methane-Oxygen Cycle. Now I'm talking about a growing area for plants, which I call a Cell.

In diagram Figure 6.1 which is a conceptual drawing of a Cell, I introduced a dehumidifier that does not have any moving parts. Such a dehumidifier requires more explanation and I don't want to go off on a tangent. So later and post#12, I describe how such a dehumidifier works and how it can be built on Mars. I also show a dehumidifier that is high in the air, close to the ceiling. That is so water that drips out of the dehumidifier ends up in a water tank that is above the plants. With the water tank being above the plants allows the use of a gravity fed watering system. Using the system the plants can be watered without using any pumps, or any electricity (energy).

The dehumidifier that was shown in Figure 6.1 has a fan that pulls air through the dehumidifier. I thought that most people who have ever used a dehumidifier are probably used to hearing a fan running in the dehumidifier. For those that know how a dehumidifier works, they know that air must be moving across the cold coil. I also needed to find an excuse to put some sort of engine that runs on methane in the Cell. So I decided to mount an engine on the dehumidifier and use it to pull air through the dehumidifier.

What I didn't show was a different version of the dehumidifier. The dehumidifier could have been mounted horizontally so that the fan is not needed. The cold coil in the dehumidifier will cool the air around it, causing the air to become more dense and sink. As the dry cold air moves downward, warm humid air takes its place. Air can be moved through the dehumidifier by simply using the convection of air, which would also cause air in a Cell to circulate without using any moving parts.

A similar method was used on Model T's to move water through the engine to cool it. The early model T's did not have a water pump. The web-site henryford.org states "There was no water pump either, as a thermosiphon effect was used to circulate cooling water."

Steve Stewart · 2023-06-18 16:56:53

SpaceNut,
I haven't read through all of your posts on this thread yet, but I will in time. It looks like you're going through each part of my proposal one post at a time asking questions. That's okay, I'd be happy to answer any and all questions that anyone has. At least it shows that someone's reading my proposal.

Let me start with post#3 of my proposal. The title of post#3 is "Introduction to the ClearEdge5(c)"

As I said before, my intentions of post#3 was to introduce a device that worked on the same principle as the CE5, not a verbatim copy of it. My intent was that Mars would have its own version(s) of the CE5. Let me again quote what I said in post#3.

Even though the CE5 is no longer produced, its principles of operation can be used on Mars.

Let me say that a different way. A device that is similar, but not identical to, just similar, using the same principals as the CE5, but not identical to the CE5, can be used on Mars. The idea is to show that there are ways of releasing chemical energy, store as methane, without having to burn methane.

The CE5 had a maximum electrical output of 5 kW. A device on Mars could put out a whole lot more than 5 kW, or it could output less than 5 kW, it depends on the size of the fuel-cell stack.

A device on Mars could supply an output of 50 kW, ten times more than the CE5. If that were the case, the fuel-cell stack would probably be (about) ten times as large, and would probably occupy (about) ten times as much space, and would probably weigh about ten times as much. It would also produce (about) ten times as much heat when it was producing its maximum output of 50 kW.

The CE5 that was shown in Figure 3.2 also had an DC to AC converter. This has seem to have caused a lot of confusion. The figure that I showed in Figure 3.2 of my proposal is an image that was in a sales brochure. I did not create that image, I only copied it from the Internet.

A device on Mars may or may not need the DC to AC converter. I did not mean to imply that everything on Mars has to run on AC current. As I just stated, a device similar, operating on the same principle as the CE5, could be used on Mars. A Mars version of the CE5 would not necessarily need a DC to AC converter. If the electrical devices on Mars are using DC, such as tablets and LED lights, then there is no need to convert the DC to AC and then back to DC again. The device on Mars would not need a DC to AC converter in that case, because the load is DC.

The reason it is in the CE5, is because it is being used in houses in the United States that have 60 Hz AC power. Appliances in houses in United States only work with AC current. In order to be compatible with houses in the United States, the CE5 needs to have a DC to AC converter. Again I did not make that image, I only copied it from the Internet. By no means does this imply that we must have AC current on Mars.

A Note on AC/DC

Reading between the lines of some of the posts on this forum, I think there is a misunderstanding that we must use AC current in order to transfer electric power over longer distances. And that we can only use DC current over short distances. That isn't true at all.

On Earth, we do see AC power lines that are capable of transferring enormous amounts of electrical power over great distances. And we never see any of these power lines using DC current. By no means does that imply that AC current somehow "flows better" through a wire than does DC current. There is very little difference between AC current flowing through a wire and DC current flowing through a wire. The difference is in the voltage.

The amount of power, or energy, flowing through a wire is measured in Watts, and in this case, Watts is equal to volts time amps. The equation is:

Watts = Volts x Amps

Suppose I'm a farmer, and I want to run a power line out to my barn, and my barn is 100 yards away (A football field away). So I run an electrical line out to my barn. Suppose the most current I can run through my power line is 10 amps. I've got one end of the electrical line hooked up to a 12 volt DC power source at the house. The amount of electrical energy (Watts) that is being transferred from my house to my barn is 120 Watts, as shown in the following equation:

12 Volts x 10 Amps = 120 Watts.

Suppose that is not enough power, I need more power in my barn. If I were to increase the current, it would increase the amount of loss in the power line to my barn. The wire can only transfer 10 amps before it starts to lose energy, that is the wires limit. However, if I increased the voltage by a factor of 10, I could transfer 10 times more power to my barn. For example, if I used 120 volts instead of 12 volts the energy transferred would be:

120 Volts x 10 Amps = 1,200 Watts

In this case it doesn't matter if the current is AC or DC. Either way the energy transferred would be 1,200 Watts. The problem is how do you convert 12 volts of DC into 120 volts of DC? We can't use a transformer, a transformer looks like a short circuit to DC. Transformers only work with AC.

We could use a DC to DC converter, but if we're talking about large amounts of power, then a DC to DC converter becomes more expensive and less practical. It would make far more sense to just use AC, so that we could use a transformer, which can handle large amounts of power and are highly efficient. That is the reason why AC is used in high voltage lines. AC is much easier to step up the voltage when transferring power over long distances, and step down the voltage near its point of use. AC does not flow any "easier" through a wire than DC.

On Mars we could transfer power over a distance using DC, thereby alleviating the need for an AC power inverter. The problem is how do we kick voltage level up using DC? We can use the DC output from a device that is similar to a CE5, and we can use this DC to run power from one building to another. If the Martian version of the CE5 used a higher DC voltage, a DC to AC converter would not be needed. There would be a problem at the point of use though. Any devices on the other end of the power line would have to be compatible with this higher (DC) voltage.

Steve Stewart · 2023-06-18 16:58:22

I'm looking over posts#3 through post#9 and I can see there is a lot of misunderstanding of what I said and of what I am trying to present. That's okay, if one person doesn't understand something it probably means there are 3 others that don't understand it but are afraid to ask.

I have to say I'm a little surprise that the level of misunderstanding is so bad. Before I posted this proposal I had sent out my proposal to some friends, probably about 6 people. All of them have a technical background of some kind, and none of them are Mars enthusiast. Some of them asked me some softball questions about Mars, since they didn't know what kind of conditions were on Mars. Some are more familiar with what is going on in space than others. All of my "test group" had no problem understanding what it was I was proposing. I got very good feedback from all of them. Some of them told me the wording in my proposal was good, but then they pointed out some punctuation errors, which I corrected. Others weren't that good with punctuation/spelling, but they knew more about space and understood the concept. Everyone told me the proposal was absolutely incredible.

I don't have a lot of time, so let me touch on a few things. I can explain some of this in more detail later. In post#4 of this thread there is a diagram of the closed loop version of the Methane-Oxygen Cycle that I presented in Figure 4.1 of my proposal.

SpaceNut wrote:
There is a mismatch between these 2 different processes as the initial cannot supply the energy for the second as...

The output of the right side of that diagram is not the input to the left side. The left side just shows energy, in the form of electricity, going into a process (Sabatier reactor in this case). That energy comes from somewhere else and is stored as chemical energy. Maybe I got the two sides too close together, but I've only got so much space to work with. If I made the boxes and text smaller it might be too hard to read. I tried to make the diagrams so that they would look okay on different computers, with different sized monitors, web browsers, OS, and so on. I used QuickCAD to make this drawing. QuickCAD is a lite version of AutoCAD. I bought my copy of QuickCAD about 20 years ago for $50 on Amazon.

Maybe it would help if I only showed one side of the diagram:

The process shown above shows CO2 and water going into a process and oxygen (O2) and methane (CH4) exiting the process. Energy is required to convert CO2 and water into oxygen and methane. Therefore the box shows electricity entering the process. Remember that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, it can only change forms. The way energy is stored, and this is true in all cases everywhere, energy is stored by converting it from one form into another.

For example, when charging a battery, electrical energy is "stored" by the battery by converting the incoming electrical energy into a different form of energy, chemical energy in that case. Chemical reactions occur inside the battery when it is being charged. These chemical reactions store energy in the form of chemical energy. In this case, energy in the form of electricity is converted to energy in the form of chemical energy.

Later, when the stored energy is needed, the battery converts chemical energy into electricity. When that happens the reactions in the battery are reversed. The amount of chemical energy in the battery goes down as the battery supplies electricity.

The same thing is happening in the diagram above. The bottom of the diagram shows CO2 and water. In the full sized version of this diagram I've label CO2 and water as a "low energy state." Notice that the elements (atoms) being used here are carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen. These same atoms can be rearranged to form different things. For example the atoms in CO2 and water can be rearranged to form oxygen (O2) and methane (CH4). If you look at the chemical formula below, which I did provide in my proposal, you'll notice we still have the same number of atoms on both sides of the equation.

The atoms that are in CO2 and water can be rearranged to form oxygen (O2) and methane (CH4), however it takes energy to do this. Electricity is used to provide the energy required to rearrange the atoms into a different form. This energy is then "stored" as chemical energy. That's why in the full sized version of the diagram I labeled oxygen (O2) and methane (CH4) as being a "high energy state."

The energy "stored" as chemical energy, specifically oxygen and methane, can be released by simply burning methane in the presence of the oxygen. The equation for that reaction is shown below, and is in my proposal.

Count the number of atoms on the left side of this equation and compare it to the number of atoms on the right. Notice that there are the same number of atoms on both sides of the equation, its just that the atoms are arranged differently. When the atoms went from CO2 and water to O2 and CH4, they used energy. When the atoms are rearrange from O2 and CH4 back into CO2 and water, that energy is released. In this way, rearranging the atoms can be used as a method of storing electrical energy. That is what the diagram is illustrating.

No I didn't show any air tanks or tanks of water in the diagram. Remember, this is a "conceptual drawing". Adding too much detail to a conceptual drawing makes it more confusing. The diagram shows what is going into the process (CO2 and water) and what is going out of the process (oxygen and methane). The point of the diagram is to illustrate the process, which I think my diagram does do.

Lets take a look at another conceptual drawing. Remember this one?

Do you see any fuel tank or gas tank in this drawing? Do you see any air tanks in this drawing used in the intake cycle. The label on the left for the intake cycle shows "air-fuel mixture" going in. Do you see any "air-fuel mixture" tanks in this drawing? No we don't because this is a "conceptual drawing" that illustrates the 4 cycles of a 4-stroke engine. The focus needs to be on the 4 cycles, not on anything else. The reader needs to stay focused on what is being presented in this drawing and not be distracted by going off on a tangent. The concepts of each drawing I made need to be understood before moving on. First we crawl, then we walk, then we run. These steps cannot be skipped.

Steve Stewart · 2023-06-18 16:59:24

Let me address one more statement, then I need to go.

SpaceNut post#3 stated:
You cannot store watts of AC energy directly as they are a measurement of energy voltage and currents.

This sentence isn't very clear, but yes, you can store Watts of energy. It doesn't matter if the energy is AC or DC. I think there is some confusion here about the term "Watts." Remember that the term "Watts" is used for two different things. Don't blame me, I'm not the one who decided to do it that way.

Watts refers to a total amount of energy, and it also refers to the rate at which energy is being used. These are two different things.

Here is an analogy:
If I said something is 5 miles away, I'm referring to a distance, an amount of distance traveled.
If I said I am walking at a rate of 5 miles per hour, I'm referring to a "rate", that is, the rate at which distance is changing.

If we talk about distance, we refer to 5 miles. If we refer to a rate, we call it 5 mph (miles per hour).

The distance and the rate at which distance is changing, are two different things. And therefore we have two different terms, miles and mph (miles per hour).

When it comes to electricity and energy, we also have two different things: A total amount of energy, analogy to distance (miles). And we have a rate that energy is being used, analogy to speed (miles per hour). The problem is, the same word, "Watts" is used for both an amount of energy (analogy to miles) and for the rate that energy is being used (analogy to miles per hour). (Again, don't blame me, I didn't do it).

In the case of a 100 Watt light, the "100 Watt" rating refers to the rate at which energy is being used. Much like miles per hour is the rate something is moving. If the 100 Watt light is on for one hour, then the amount of electricity used is 100 Watts. In this case "100 Watts" refers to the total amount of energy used. Much like miles is the total amount of distance traveled.

Consider the following algebraic equation:

X = X + 1

This equation is obviously wrong. A value for X cannot be equal to a value that is 1 greater than itself.

Now consider the following equation:

Watts = Watts x Hours

This equation looks equally wrong, but it's actually right. The reason is because the word "Watts" on the left is referring to a different term than the word "Watts" on the right.

The word "Watts" on the right is referring to the rate at which energy is being used, much like the rating of a 100 Watt light bulb. When we multiply this rate by time, we get the total amount of electricity used. If a 100 Watt bulb is on for ten hours, it uses 1,000 Watts of energy, measured in Watts.

1,000 Watts (amount of energy used) = 100 Watts (rate of use) x 10 hours

To convert mph to miles, we also multiply by time. For example if I walk at a rate of 5 mph for 1 hour, then I have walked 5 miles.

5 Miles (distance) = 5 mph (rate distance is changing) x 1 hour

Hopefully this is starting to make sense.

Lets look at the quote again.

SpaceNut post#3 stated:
You cannot store watts of AC energy directly as they are a measurement of energy voltage and currents.

If we are talking about Watts being equal to Volts times Amps, then we are talking about Watts as a rate that energy is being used.

Watts = Volts x Amps

This is a rate energy is being used, not an amount of energy. If the rate is multiplied by time, we get a number that refers to a total amount of energy. The equation for amount of energy is as follows:

Watts (amount of energy) = Volts x Amps x Time

This Watts, which is an amount of energy, is often measured in Kilowatts. We pay or electric bills in units of Kilowatts. Which is the amount of energy we used. It is this Watts (amount of energy) that I referred to when storing energy. And because this Watts is energy, it can be converted to other forms of energy. This is the Watts I am/was referring to when storing energy. And yes, this Watts can be converted to many other forms of energy.

I need to go, that's all the time I have for now. I'll be back next weekend and post some more. I'll try and put together some drawings that explain the storage of energy better, which has to do with post#3 through post#5 of my proposal. There is no need in going any farther than post#5 of my proposal until post#3 through post#5 are understood. Remember, first we crawl, then we walk, then we run. These steps cannot be skipped.

tahanson43206 · 2023-06-18 17:21:09

For Steve Steward ...

Thank you for the explanation of confusion caused by the folks who set up the term Watt so it could be used for both the rate of energy flow, and a measure of energy stored (or consumed). I am surprised to find that either (a) I never knew that or (b) I had forgotten it. Of the two, I am guessing number b is more likely. My sense is that we tend to remember things that seem a little bit jarring / out-of-the-ordinary. It is entirely possible that the course material on electricity included the distinction you presented, but I may very well not have allocated neurons to remember it. In ** this ** case, since you took the time to explain the distinction in the context of your proposal, I expect I'll be able to remember it.

On a different but related question ... have you ever read any of the many posts by Louis?

I ask because SpaceNut seems to be taking on a similar role as Louis .... In the course of his presence in the forum, Louis provoked some of the very best writing by other members, by steadfastly feigning inability to understand (or perhaps accept) the writings of others.

I am glad to see that your initial review team gave you some light feedback but nothing too discouraging. With that running start, your offer of your proposal to this forum might have been accepted without comment, and it would just have flowed under the bridge like so much else. SpaceNut's decision to engage with you is a happy circumstance, because it provides you with an opportunity to work with misunderstandings and misconceptions that did not show up in your earlier review cycle.

I would like to note that in one of your posts, you indicated you may not be aware of similar work done by others. The Mars Society has been sponsoring research, writing and even entire books over recent years. My guess is that you may not be aware of the full extent of that work.

I am pretty sure I posted about the most recent book by the Mars Society, most probably in the Mars Society topic. I bought two copies and gave them away in hopes they might inspire young people to think about careers preparing for or perhaps even participating in the Mars adventure.

(th)

SpaceNut · 2023-06-18 18:48:09

Ok so you want a new device that acts like the ce5 to create power, but a fuel cell needs no carbon in its fuel source. So why would we want to waste energy of creation to do so?

In fact, just do a water electrolysis and reverse fuel cell to keep it simple as there is no requirement for a Sabatier reaction.

Ac watts convert at 80 % stored values of DC as a voltage and ampere hours. Also, DC converted back to AC is only 94% efficient and those are measured in watt hours or Kwhr of use.

So, a watt is also the measurement of value that fluctuate from second to second would yield an average watt hr. but also the constant value over a period of time or in this case 1 hour or for multiple hours of constant draw.

Next up is watt e (energy) which is also a constant over time ability to provide power.

Sabatier reaction is not perfect as the desired equation but rather there is some reactions that are not complete with each gas being passed through. This happens as there is a narrow operation temperature for the catalyst which is made with for the chamber and fluctuations do cause it to output unfinished reactions.

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/201 … 004697.pdf

Also, the block for the Sabatier input is hydrogen into it after electrolysis of water and the oxygen is captured externally not as an output of the chamber's reaction. Partial conversion in the chamber is water output with the methane.

The cell chambers require nothing to burn to create co2 as that is just a waste of energy to do so when all that is required is the supply of it from mars air filtered from a pump connecting to the outside after its warmed to exit into where the plants are.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2023-06-14 14:27:26

Companion: Storing Energy, Introducing a "Cell", a Soil Factory

#2 2023-06-14 14:39:37

Re: Companion: Storing Energy, Introducing a "Cell", a Soil Factory

#3 2023-06-14 17:05:25

Re: Companion: Storing Energy, Introducing a "Cell", a Soil Factory

#4 2023-06-14 17:24:43

Re: Companion: Storing Energy, Introducing a "Cell", a Soil Factory

#5 2023-06-14 17:37:03

Re: Companion: Storing Energy, Introducing a "Cell", a Soil Factory

#6 2023-06-14 17:37:37

Re: Companion: Storing Energy, Introducing a "Cell", a Soil Factory

#7 2023-06-14 17:45:27

Re: Companion: Storing Energy, Introducing a "Cell", a Soil Factory

#8 2023-06-14 18:30:57

Re: Companion: Storing Energy, Introducing a "Cell", a Soil Factory

#9 2023-06-14 19:03:33

Re: Companion: Storing Energy, Introducing a "Cell", a Soil Factory

#10 2023-06-14 19:07:26

Re: Companion: Storing Energy, Introducing a "Cell", a Soil Factory

#11 2023-06-14 20:40:06

Re: Companion: Storing Energy, Introducing a "Cell", a Soil Factory

#12 2023-06-14 20:50:06

Re: Companion: Storing Energy, Introducing a "Cell", a Soil Factory

#13 2023-06-14 21:04:23

Re: Companion: Storing Energy, Introducing a "Cell", a Soil Factory

#14 2023-06-14 21:06:46

Re: Companion: Storing Energy, Introducing a "Cell", a Soil Factory

#15 2023-06-14 21:07:57

Re: Companion: Storing Energy, Introducing a "Cell", a Soil Factory

#16 2023-06-14 21:08:25

Re: Companion: Storing Energy, Introducing a "Cell", a Soil Factory

#17 2023-06-14 21:08:31

Re: Companion: Storing Energy, Introducing a "Cell", a Soil Factory

#18 2023-06-18 16:52:34

Re: Companion: Storing Energy, Introducing a "Cell", a Soil Factory

#19 2023-06-18 16:54:16

Re: Companion: Storing Energy, Introducing a "Cell", a Soil Factory

#20 2023-06-18 16:55:30

Re: Companion: Storing Energy, Introducing a "Cell", a Soil Factory

#21 2023-06-18 16:56:53

Re: Companion: Storing Energy, Introducing a "Cell", a Soil Factory

#22 2023-06-18 16:58:22

Re: Companion: Storing Energy, Introducing a "Cell", a Soil Factory

#23 2023-06-18 16:59:24

Re: Companion: Storing Energy, Introducing a "Cell", a Soil Factory

#24 2023-06-18 17:21:09

Re: Companion: Storing Energy, Introducing a "Cell", a Soil Factory

#25 2023-06-18 18:48:09

Re: Companion: Storing Energy, Introducing a "Cell", a Soil Factory

Board footer