Fuel cell by-product

[Buzz light fear]

Fuel cells kind of a battery but uses fuel real fuel cells have a byproduct of electric power and water. So I am suggesting that the fuel cells have another byproduct of ore that way you can make a regenerative fuel cell setup that can be run almost forever and the ore tanks can dump their ore like what the shuttle had to do every day. Who thinks this would be a good idea to modify the fuel cells to produce ore as a byproduct comment below.

[Tyko]

Some life support mods use water as a resource, so I guess it could be used for that. If you had water as a resource you could break it down (by adding electricity back in) to hydrogen and oxygen to power some mod's cryogenic engines...So, I guess there would be some ways to use it.

I think the biggest issue though is just the small quantities you're talking about. Compared to fuel-hungry engines, the amount of fuel you'd recover from the waste product of the fuel cell reaction is really small.

Edited December 1, 2016 by Tyko

[Red Iron Crown]

Wouldn't this be like running a car on hydrogen and oxygen electrolyzed from the water in the exhaust?

If running the fuel cell turns the fuels into ore while releasing energy, it will consume more than that same energy to turn the ore into fuel if conservation of energy is observed. So you'd need to add energy to the system through solar panels or RTGs, and the fuel/oxidizer would be essentially energy storage for that trickle of energy. So I guess the question is: Why not just use batteries instead for the energy storage rather than a complex and heavy fuel cell+ISRU setup?

[Buzz light fear]

1 hour ago, Red Iron Crown said:

Wouldn't this be like running a car on hydrogen and oxygen electrolyzed from the water in the exhaust?

If running the fuel cell turns the fuels into ore while releasing energy, it will consume more than that same energy to turn the ore into fuel if conservation of energy is observed. So you'd need to add energy to the system through solar panels or RTGs, and the fuel/oxidizer would be essentially energy storage for that trickle of energy. So I guess the question is: Why not just use batteries instead for the energy storage rather than a complex and heavy fuel cell+ISRU setup?

I was thinking of using it power a large interplanetary ship with two small rtgs for the missing power difference and propel the ship using ion engines it could almost qualify as an small stock nuclear reactor with high power output for the ion engines. I figured we would need to tap off the power and the ore output would be the fraction of the fuel that was used converted into ore like a reverse isru device.

3 hours ago, Tyko said:

Some life support mods use water as a resource, so I guess it could be used for that. If you had water as a resource you could break it down (by adding electricity back in) to hydrogen and oxygen to power some mod's cryogenic engines...So, I guess there would be some ways to use it.

I think the biggest issue though is just the small quantities you're talking about. Compared to fuel-hungry engines, the amount of fuel you'd recover from the waste product of the fuel cell reaction is really small.

But in long term think of how much longer you could run on just fuel cells.

[Buzz light fear]

So I ran the numbers and it there does need to be a small external source of power to fill in a gap of 3 electricity per second nothing a small solar panel can't handle.

 

[Red Iron Crown]

1 hour ago, Buzz light fear said:

So I ran the numbers and it there does need to be a small external source of power to fill in a gap of 3 electricity per second nothing a small solar panel can't handle.

 

Can you share how you calculated this?

[Magzimum]

In terms of the KSP game mechanics:

A fuel cell burns fuel and oxidizer (LFO), and generates electric charge and ore. To convert that ore back to fuel and oxidizer, you need at least the same amount of electricity. (If the game wants to be a little realistic, the conversion back to fuel and oxidizer should be a bit more).

So, assuming this is a 100% efficient setup, you can do the following two steps

LFO -> charge + ore -> LFO

... and you gained exactly nothing.

You are right that you can regenerate the fuel cell if you capture its waste (ore, or in the real world: water). You need solar panels or RTGs to do the regeneration. So, you could use the solar panels or RTGs for regeneration while they are not being used (i.e. you are just cruising through space, and the ship is idling), and then burn the fuel for extra electric charge in times when electricity demand is high. But you should note that the ore storage and regeneration are essentially just a way to store electric charge. And batteries do the same.

So, the questions you have to ask yourself is: how much electric charge can I store this way, compared to using ordinary batteries? And what if the efficiency of the system is not 100% but less (while batteries are pretty close to 100%)? Is it still interesting?

[Buzz light fear]

9 hours ago, Red Iron Crown said:

Can you share how you calculated this?

Yes what I did was I compared the out put of fuel and oxidizer from the isru 250 and divided by the consumption of fuel from the fuel cell six pack. Like this: isru values input 30 energy and 0.5 ore = .45 fuel and .55 oxidizer, fuel cell array values: input 0.02025 fuel 0.02475 oxidizer = 18 energy. Now that we have the values we take 0.45/0.02025=22.22222222 then divide 30/22.2222222=1.35 energy or the isru to make fuel and .35 less energy being produced per fuel used. Someone please check.

[Magzimum]

You are right with that calculation.

And that shows that the end-product of the fuel cells cannot possibly be ore. Otherwise we could create free energy, which is thermodynamically impossible... 

 

Edited December 1, 2016 by Magzimum

[Buzz light fear]

2 hours ago, Magzimum said:

You are right with that calculation.

And that shows that the end-product of the fuel cells cannot possibly be ore. Otherwise we could create free energy, which is thermodynamically impossible... 

 

Phew I did my math right I knew it would not have a perfect output but I figured it was easy enough to ad a couple of rtgs to fill in that small gap. I also liked the idea so you could carry less solar panels on the ship that is ion propelled and would save mass and you would only need to use all the fuel cells for times like burns or deep space communication. Also this way you could convert the ore generated into other fuels like mono prop so you could launch without it and have tons of it when you get to your target system. I am thinking about modifying an fuel cell to do what I am suggesting.

7 hours ago, Magzimum said:

In terms of the KSP game mechanics:

A fuel cell burns fuel and oxidizer (LFO), and generates electric charge and ore. To convert that ore back to fuel and oxidizer, you need at least the same amount of electricity. (If the game wants to be a little realistic, the conversion back to fuel and oxidizer should be a bit more).

So, assuming this is a 100% efficient setup, you can do the following two steps

LFO -> charge + ore -> LFO

... and you gained exactly nothing.

You are right that you can regenerate the fuel cell if you capture its waste (ore, or in the real world: water). You need solar panels or RTGs to do the regeneration. So, you could use the solar panels or RTGs for regeneration while they are not being used (i.e. you are just cruising through space, and the ship is idling), and then burn the fuel for extra electric charge in times when electricity demand is high. But you should note that the ore storage and regeneration are essentially just a way to store electric charge. And batteries do the same.

So, the questions you have to ask yourself is: how much electric charge can I store this way, compared to using ordinary batteries? And what if the efficiency of the system is not 100% but less (while batteries are pretty close to 100%)? Is it still interesting?

Good points all of them but it was just a thought to make the game more fun and add a small level of complexity

Edited December 1, 2016 by Buzz light fear
Not enough info

[Tyko]

yea...interesting idea. There are already cases where the game violates basic laws - reaction wheels and conservation of momentum for example - I think I'd prefer that they try not to break any others

[Buzz light fear]

16 hours ago, Tyko said:

yea...interesting idea. There are already cases where the game violates basic laws - reaction wheels and conservation of momentum for example - I think I'd prefer that they try not to break any others

You seem like a intelligent person but reaction wheels do exist in reality some communication satalites use these to keep your satalite tv working. And the only time I can think of ksp violating the laws of physics is with the spinning mass shifter to gain speed but that is more because the fuel transfer process is physics free and just shifts the COM.

[monstah]

4 minutes ago, Buzz light fear said:

You seem like a intelligent person but reaction wheels do exist in reality some communication satalites use these to keep your satalite tv working. And the only time I can think of ksp violating the laws of physics is with the spinning mass shifter to gain speed but that is more because the fuel transfer process is physics free and just shifts the COM.

Real life reaction wheels are orders of magnitude less powerful than KSP ones. They also don't magically create torque, they store momentum; eventually, they have to let go of that momentum by using RCS. So, in the long run, all ship attitude control is done by propellant and thrusters. Well, that and very small satellites in orbit around Earth that get away with magnetic torque.

Anyway, KSP's ISRU closed-loop system isn't physics-breaking per se, but it is logic-shattering.

It's detractors say it creates energy from out of nowhere, which breaks physics. It's defenders argue that's akin to mining oil on Earth, which is a real thing so doesn't violate physics laws at all. But the logic flaw is, how the hell did petroleum-equivalent amounts of energy get embedded in space ore? It's not a closed loop on Earth because the energy has been coming from the sun during hundreds of millions of years and stored in complex molecules by life.

Real-life ISRU use solar energy to create the fuel, and that's where the energy comes from. That's also why it's not a closed loop. That's also why it takes a long time.

What you're proposing here seems to suffer from the same flaws. vOv not like KSP doesn't do this kind of stuff already anyway.

 

That said, I don't like the idea. I'd go for water, but that's a new resource for stock game, and they'd have to find a use to it (otherwise you'd just get rid of the mass, which we can assume is already done automatically anyway). And ore... eh. I don't know, not only it makes no sense (rocks from organics? Where's the silicon and iron?), it also feels like the fuel cell is eating fuel and then defecating   

[Tyko]

2 hours ago, Buzz light fear said:

You seem like a intelligent person but reaction wheels do exist in reality some communication satalites use these to keep your satalite tv working. And the only time I can think of ksp violating the laws of physics is with the spinning mass shifter to gain speed but that is more because the fuel transfer process is physics free and just shifts the COM.

Real reaction wheels get "saturated" and, as they're used, lose effectiveness until they finally have no benefit at all. At that point an external force such as RCS has to be used to desaturate the wheels. In KSP Reaction Wheels continue to be able to apply torque as long as they have electricity and this violates real world physics.

Here's a quick video that talks a bit about that. I hope this helps.

 

 

Edited December 2, 2016 by Tyko

[Buzz light fear]

1 hour ago, Tyko said:

Real reaction wheels get "saturated" and, as they're used, lose effectiveness until they finally have no benefit at all. At that point an external force such as RCS has to be used to desaturate the wheels. In KSP Reaction Wheels continue to be able to apply torque as long as they have electricity and this violates real world physics.

Here's a quick video that talks a bit about that. I hope this helps.

 

 

The ships can be stoped by having al the wheels spin to cause a a gyroscopeic affect to stop all motion of the space craft but the ones in the game are to powereful fore their mass and power consumption

[Red Iron Crown]

2 minutes ago, Buzz light fear said:

The ships can be stoped by having al the wheels spin to cause a a gyroscopeic affect to stop all motion of the space craft but the ones in the game are to powereful fore their mass and power consumption

You seem like a intelligent person but that's not how it works at all. Angular momentum must be conserved, both reaction wheels and gryoscopes eventually saturate and must be spun down with the assistance of thrusters.

[Buzz light fear]

5 minutes ago, Red Iron Crown said:

You seem like a intelligent person but that's not how it works at all. Angular momentum must be conserved, both reaction wheels and gryoscopes eventually saturate and must be spun down with the assistance of thrusters.

I see but maybe the reaction wheels in ksp are the ones that are constantly spinning and are just angled to change the attitude of the spacecraft. This would prevent the saturation in theory but I am not so sure. The amount of torque applied by the ksp ones means they are spinning something very dense like lead.

[Red Iron Crown]

1 minute ago, Buzz light fear said:

I see but maybe the reaction wheels in ksp are the ones that are constantly spinning and are just angled to change the attitude of the spacecraft. This would prevent the saturation in theory but I am not so sure. The amount of torque applied by the ksp ones means they are spinning something very dense like lead.

Control moment gyroscopes also saturate. There is no free lunch here, angular momentum is always conserved.

[Buzz light fear]

1 minute ago, Red Iron Crown said:

Control moment gyroscopes also saturate. There is no free lunch here, angular momentum is always conserved.

 Ok nonsense fighting with a moderator 

[monstah]

1 minute ago, Buzz light fear said:

 Ok nonsense fighting with a moderator 

What, moderator status trumps scientific knowledge? He's right because he's right, and that's that.

[Buzz light fear]

2 minutes ago, monstah said:

What, moderator status trumps scientific knowledge? He's right because he's right, and that's that.

He is the moderator because he has high intellect and is smarter science wise then we are. Anyway I thought that the fuel cells byproduct of ore would make sense because it would be something like carbonated water that then could be turned int other fuels. Meaning you could just drop off liquid fuel and oxidizer at a station and have it be able to convert the ore byproduct to other fuels saving launch costs.

[monstah]

Just now, Buzz light fear said:

He is the moderator because he has high intellect and is smarter science wise then we are. 

Sorry that I sounded condescending there. That's actually not the case, either. Being a moderator here is just about keeping community things running smooth  

[sal_vager]

These might help, they discuss the problems of saturation even with control moment gyroscopes.

Control moment gyroscopes on the ISS.

Optimal Reorientation of Spacecraft Using Only Control Moment Gyroscopes.

[Buzz light fear]

On 12/2/2016 at 2:32 PM, sal_vager said:

These might help, they discuss the problems of saturation even with control moment gyroscopes.

Control moment gyroscopes on the ISS.

Optimal Reorientation of Spacecraft Using Only Control Moment Gyroscopes.

Yes they are using gyroscopes that retain a certain angle and attitude and the entire station is I think being moved by the motors attached to the gyroscopes

[EpicSpaceTroll139]

I can see a fuel cell byproduct a being very useful. Perhaps there could be two fuel cell types: 

Total loss: What we have now.

Reversible/Closed Cycle: More expensive and heavy than an equivalent total loss fuel cell. Produces "water" (or whatever reacted LfOx forms) as a byproduct, of which some can be stored in a tank integrated in the fuel cell, and if necessary, some can be stored in separate tanks. When toggled, the fuel cell would act as an electrolyzer, using somewhat more electricity than was produced earlier in order to revert the byproduct into LfOx. Such a system could be useful for dense energy storage to say, allow power hungry operations (such as a running a MPL) to go on through, for example, the long Münar night. As opposed to having a few hundred large batteries, you could have a few fuel tanks and a reversible fuel cell. The trade-off would be that the maximum charge/discharge rates would be finite, as opposed to infinite like with regular KSP batteries.

Edited December 9, 2016 by EpicSpaceTroll139
two* not too lol typo