Thermodynamic and materials

perseus

Member
Joined
May 31, 2008
Messages
315
Reaction score
1
Points
18
He made calculations for calculating the thermodynamic efficiency of a Carnot cycle engine for a nuclear bimodal, operating temperatures are high and the radiators too.
I wonder what materials are adequate to withstand these temperatures?
Image39.gif


These are the general features of the machine thermal production of electricity by Brayton cycle.

Q'ε = Q (1 - Tf/Tc)
H = Q (1 - (1-Tf/Tc))
H = σAT4

Tc 1000 Kº
Tf 425.27 Kº
Radiators 12 (6.78 x4.45)
Surface 362,052 m2
wavelength l=6.81E-006 m
Rend. Machine thermal 47%

Pw irradiated 6.72E +005 w
Pw. Util 9.08E +005 w
Pw. Total 1.58E +006 w
 
Last edited:
http://www.matweb.com/ is your friend.

A quick search of materials brought up the following:

Ceramics/Composites:

Advanced Ceramics ACL 2089 Cordierite - 1100ºC, 1.80 g/cc
GE Advanced Ceramics HBT Hot-Pressed Boron Nitride - 3000ºC, 1.75 g/cc
SGL Carbon Group EK 10 Carbon Graphite - 399-1200ºC, 1.66 g/cc
SGL Carbon Group EK 40 Graphite - 510-2510ºC, 1.68 g/cc
CoorsTek Alumina AD-85 (nom. 85% Al2O3) - 1400ºC, 3.42 g/cc
Aremco AREMCOLOX™ 502-1600 (99%) Machinable and Fired Ceramics Boron Nitride 99% - 3000ºC, 1.69 g/cc
Mid-Mountain Materials Thermoseal® Fiberpak® M22 Moldable - 1260ºC, 0.36-1.22 g/cc

Metals:
Overview of materials for Stainless Steel - 280-1400ºC, 0.19-9.01 g/cc
309 Stainless Steel, tested at 980°C (1800°F) - 980-1100ºC, 8.00 g/cc

Other:

Destech Open-Celled Glassy Carbon Foam - 3000ºC, 1.5 g/cc

I'm not sure where you want to use various materials. Composites are good for simple tanks as long as they have a good liner -- there are mandrels that can build them light and strong to design specs. But using them elsewhere means dealing with materials with largely unknown fatigue issues (there's not really any plastic region, just deformation and fracture). Ceramics can be lighter and tougher as well as even more resilient to heat, but everything you gain is traded for out of malleability -- they're notoriously brittle. The X-33 was to use a metal matrix composite but I don't recall what it was a mix of or the properties therein. It was supposed to be much more reliable than RCC, but carried with it a slight weight penalty.
 
Thank you for your very comprehensive information, is hereby confirmed the existence of the materials needed to develop the system with light weight and thermal conductivity diverse.

These are materials with properties at high temperatures fantastic.
 
I never understood thermodynamics and chemistry. I bought a book on chemistry to learn when I came to the idea of creating waste treatment for Space Orbinomics game, but thermodynamics remains a mystery to me.
 
Well morale, almost everything that seems a mystery at first, becomes easy compression, and the study of heat energy, its effects and use in useful energy, surrounds us since the launch shells, use plants that converts the heat in electric power, until the creaación light in one bulb .

Greetings ar81
 
I never understood thermodynamics and chemistry. I bought a book on chemistry to learn when I came to the idea of creating waste treatment for Space Orbinomics game, but thermodynamics remains a mystery to me.

Thermo is all about the effects of Pressure, Temperature/Heat, and Volume on one another. It's about transferring energy from some chemical process to a mechanical one (pistons for example convert potential chemical energy into work). All combustion and combustion-related machinery rely on thermodynamics from the lowly compressor can in a jet engine to the combustion chamber, as well as turbopumps that keep fuel and oxidizer flowing into the chamber.
 
I know that. The problem is that professors at university never got to explain clearly the basic laws of thermodynamics, so when I read this...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamics#The_laws_of_thermodynamics
...I still do not understand it.

They never got to explain clearly the concepts of entropy, work on the system (applied to the system) vs work by the system (applied to something else), and the boundaries of a thermodynamical system, so you can see input-process-output.
 
I know that. The problem is that professors at university never got to explain clearly the basic laws of thermodynamics, so when I read this...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamics#The_laws_of_thermodynamics
...I still do not understand it.

They never got to explain clearly the concepts of entropy, work on the system (applied to the system) vs work by the system (applied to something else), and the boundaries of a thermodynamical system, so you can see input-process-output.

Entropy is sort of nonsensical. It was created because the First Law of Thermodynamics makes no statements about the direction of energy. The First Law states that the energy of a system is conserved. That's all fine and good but with the First Law alone, this means things like coffee cups shattering and perfectly reassembling themselves is completely possible. The reason that isn't possible is because energy from the cup is dissipated to the environment and it can't be returned -- entropy is like a measure of the inefficiency or random energy a system can lose. It's used in more complex Thermo problems when you lack enough state variables (pressure, temperature or volume) to predict the next state. Because you know the system will only gain entropy at state 1 you can calculate the current entropy and use it to get the entropy at state 2. I'm a little rusty on my Thermo (I've been working dynamics for the last 2 years and haven't touched the stuff so accept my disclaimer of fuzzy memory). I'm told the actual numerical meaning of Entropy makes very little sense unless you take a course in Quantum Mechanics.

Work by the system vs. Work on the system is more a personal preference than anything else. As long as you're consistently setting the boundaries of your system and analyzing them separately (not counting anything twice) then you're good to go. That's why teaching it is so problematic. There isn't a set down rule that [X] is how you define system boundaries. It's instead developed on a case-by-case basis in which you decide what definition is easiest for you to work in. For instance, let's say you need to simulate fueling from a tank. Because you're not designing the tank, and you're not concerned with the tank's effect on anything else, you make the inside of the tanks (The one holding fuel and the empty one you're fueling into) your system. Initially, it's closed off, and let's say there's a vacuum in the empty tank. You open the valve and immediately the pressure and temperature of both tanks changes. Volume is constant. But because we've limited the system to the internal volume of the tanks, we don't have to worry about the effect of things like the space environment (radiation, external vacuum, other structure, etc...), it's just a simply temperature and pressure problem (assuming we're working with a gas which allows us to assume it expands to fill the tank).

As far as coding goes, it often helps to define objects with some set number of inputs and outputs. If you're talking about a spacecraft then I'd break it down like so:

Inputs/Outputs
Fuel
Oxidizer
Oxygen
Nitrogen
Inerts (like Helium in propulsion systems)
Consumables (Water, Food, Batteries)
Inert Payload
Inert Passengers

You track the mass of each one of those. Your spacecraft is the system, so things like Inerts, Consumables, Payload and Passengers don't have any effect on the total mass (they can't leave the spacecraft unless something went seriously wrong). Fuel and Oxidizer leave the spacecraft in known quantities proportional to throttle setting and atmospheric pressure. Oxygen and Nitrogen are consumed in known quantities as well based on the number of people and the type of activity they're performing but they never leave the spacecraft. Instead they're converted into CO2, but for a simple system you can think of O2 and N2 as simply decreasing.

So if you want to get something small running, I'd leave it at that. Then you can go in and divide the system/spacecraft into smaller systems like CO2 generation and filtering, waste production, water recycling, etc... which will affect how quickly your inputs and outputs (really just the consumables because Oxygen and Nitrogen will be consumed constantly) are consumed.
 
Back
Top