Slashdot Mirror


Jet Engine on a Chip

Roland Piquepaille writes "Today, our handheld devices are powered by batteries, which are heavy and inconvenient. Fuel cells are just arriving on the market as a replacement. But there is a new contender: micro gas turbine engines under development at the MIT. Engineers there shrunk jet engines to the size of a coat button. And their blades which span an area smaller than a dime can spin a million times per minute and produce enough electricity to power your PDA or your cell phone. While there are still a few hurdles to overcome, these micro turbine engines should be operational in two or three years, with commercial products available four years from now. These micro jet engines also have the potential to free soldiers or travelers from carrying heavy batteries. The engineers even think their engines on a chip could be used in poor countries to bring electricity there. This summary gives you the essential details about a technology which promises to free us to carry extra fuel instead of batteries."

34 of 463 comments (clear)

  1. Fear... by grub · · Score: 4, Funny


    Engineers there shrunk jet engines to the size of a coat button

    Naturally the Department of Homeland Security will declare that people with 4 or more buttons on their coat are 'terrorists'

    --
    Trolling is a art,
    1. Re:Fear... by uujjj · · Score: 5, Funny

      Any Amish /.ers willing to back this up?

  2. Cool, but misleading title by AKAImBatman · · Score: 5, Interesting

    1. That's pretty damned cool. Gas Turbines are some of the most efficient fuel -> energy converters known to man.

    2. Saying that a Gas Turbine == a Jet Engine is a bit misleading. It's a bit like saying "Scientists have shrunk an electric motor to 4 nanmometers", then before you even finish thinking about all the MEMS devices, you read "Scientists have produced a 4 nanometer electric genertor for use in making power for MEMS devices." Still very cool, but not the same thing.

    1. Re:Cool, but misleading title by maeka · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Why do you say that gas turbines are some of the most efficient fuel to energy converters known to man? Every link I can find in a google search says otherwise. http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=45726 for example.

      Gas turbines seem to only become highly fuel efficient when the heat of their exhaust gas is captured by a secondary system, like a steam recovery boiler. http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/v33_1_00/turbi ne.htm

    2. Re:Cool, but misleading title by kaszeta · · Score: 5, Informative
      Gas Turbines are some of the most efficient fuel -> energy converters known to man.

      Actually, in terms of the overall thermodynamic efficiency, they aren't all that great. 40% efficiency is *very* good for a Brayton cycle (i.e. turbine engine) system, but is fairly easily done with a large-scale steam system. Microturbines tend to run around 25%, which means that (a) you need a fairly big recuperator to run efficiently (which doesn't seem to be part of the MIT design), and (b) you need to be able to reject a lot of waste heat (so running your laptop on one of these means you'll be blowed 200+ watts out the back).

      Not that gas turbines are without their advantages. Their specific power (weight per kW) is very good, so for the same amount of power the engine is very light compared to most other engine types (which is why they use them in aircraft). They also start and stop quickly compared to steam turbine systems. And they can be nicely combined with other systems like a steam system to make a combined cycle, the whole system can be fairly efficient.

      But, by themselves, they aren't all that efficient.

    3. Re:Cool, but misleading title by AKAImBatman · · Score: 4, Informative

      Why do you say that gas turbines are some of the most efficient fuel to energy converters known to man? Every link I can find in a google search says otherwise.

      That used to be true, but the current breed of Gas Turbines are amazingly efficient. From wikipedia:

      They can be particularly efficient -- up to 60 percent -- when waste heat from the gas turbine is recovered by a conventional steam turbine in a combined cycle.

      The primary issue in obtaining high efficiencies is in (as you stated) efficiently recycling the waste heat. I can only assume that the inventors would be attempting to shrink the secondary cycle along with the gas turbine. The physics really aren't all that different, so it should just be a matter of materials.

      Also from the wikipedia link above:

      Typical micro turbine efficiencies are 20 to 35 percent. When in a combined heat and power system, overall efficiencies of greater than 90 percent may be achieved.

    4. Re:Cool, but misleading title by kaszeta · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Trying to make an efficient micro-turbine like this should be quite interesting. Viscosity will play a much bigger role - your entire flow regime will have the effects normally confined to the boundary layers on larger turbines.

      You are correct. However, much of the fluid mechanics of very small microturbines is rather well understood, so the basic goal isn't unreasonable. And usually the answer to viscosity is speed---small turbines generally spin very, very fast.

      (Disclaimer, I work for a company that makes very small turbines.)

  3. exaust by tubbtubb · · Score: 5, Funny


    What about the exaust?
    I can't wait to get kicked out of a snooty coffee shop because my dual core G5 laptop was asphyxiating the customers . . .

  4. Roland Piquepaille by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting
  5. no kidding dept. by lottameez · · Score: 5, Funny

    While there are still a few hurdles to overcome...
    Ya think?

    --
    Yeah? Well I think you're overrated too.
  6. Re:What about pollution? by djh101010 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If the fuel is a clean hydrocarbon, the exhaust will be CO2 and H2O. Using batteries pollutes too, you just don't see it right there because it's either at the power plant where your battery charger got it's energy from, or it's in the chemical pollution of used dead batteries, or both.

  7. gas powered calculator by morcheeba · · Score: 4, Funny

    There was a bit of calculator one-up-manship in some of my classes, so I always wanted to connect a little model airplane engine to a little generator and use it to power my calculator during exams. Besides the roar of the non-mufflered engine (dropping in RPMs during every keypress as it consumes more power), there would be the smell half-burnt gas coming out of that little two-stroke. The intimidation factor alone would have skewed the curve in my direction.

    So, wow, my silly dreams could become reality!

  8. Geese by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Do these things still make a horrid mess when they accidentally suck geese in through the intake?

  9. Conspicuous omission by Engineer-Poet · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Neither "reference" (they aren't worthy of the term) mentions a thing about efficiency.

    This matters a lot, because small turbines suffer much more from viscous flow losses and heat-transfer losses than large ones. If a 50 W microturbine is 10% efficient, its waste heat will amount to 450 watts; if it is 5% efficient, the waste heat will be 950 watts! This could easily lead to them being banned from commercial aircraft, because the extra heat load and oxygen consumption would drive A/C loading too high (not to mention the discomfort of adjacent passengers).

  10. You also planning to use this excuse in elevators? by StressGuy · · Score: 4, Funny

    Beats blaming it on the dog I guess... :)

    --
    A goal is a dream with a deadline
  11. Re:What about pollution? by pclminion · · Score: 4, Insightful
    What about pollution from this? Has that even been considered?

    Compare with traditional rechargable batteries.

    First, there is the one-time environmental cost of manufacturing the batteries. Making a battery requires fuel for mining equipment, transporting the materials, running the manufacturing equipment, and producing the electrolyte.

    Second, there is the energy required to charge the battery. This energy comes from the power grid. Ultimately, it comes from burning fossil fuels in power plants. This energy must be transmitted via wires to an electrical outlet, turned into DC by a rectifier, and finally, used to charge the battery.

    In other words, here's the energy path for the turbine:

    Fossil fuel ---> Combustion ---> Turn turbine ---> Generate DC power

    And for the rechargable batteries:

    Fossil fuel ---> Combustion ---> Turn turbine ---> Generate AC current ---> Transform to high voltage ---> Transmit down wires ---> Transform back to low voltage ---> Rectify to DC power

    Which do you think is more efficient?

  12. Energy = energy, danger = danger by dpbsmith · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Each disposable cartridge would pack as much energy as a few heavy handfuls of lithium-ion batteries."

    We don't really want to carry larger and larger packages of energy on our person. As it is, we are seeing accidents like this one due to today's ordinary lithium-ion batteries. And I recently got a recall notice from Verizon about the kind of batteries used in my cell phone, so this isn't an isolated incident.

    When someone tosses a 9V battery in their pocket and it gets shorted out by a coin, they are startled, yell, and pick the hot coin out of their pocket.

    When a cell phone battery acts up, Shelley Kaehr got a handful of battery acid and set fire to the floor.

    Multiply that by "a few heavy handfuls" and you start to get the possibility of really serious personal injury.

    What we need are breakthroughs on the power consumption side, not ever-increasing power supplies

  13. Obvious joke by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Hey, what is that?"

    "WHAT?"

    "I said, what is that"

    "MY NEW JET-POWERED MP3 PLAYER"

    "cool , what are you playing?"

    "I'M NOT SURE"

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  14. Can we PLEASE STOP linking to this guy's blog??? by sczimme · · Score: 5, Informative


    In all seriousness, why does /. continue to link to his ramblings instead of to articles that contain real, useful, technical content?

    Yes, this is probably off-topic (as in "not about tiny turbines") but it is still relevant. At least give us the option to ignore him.

    --
    I want to drag this out as long as possible. Bring me my protractor.
  15. Roland... by addie · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Can we please stop posting directly to stories on this guy's weblog? It's embarassing for Slashdot. The real news link you're looking for is:

    here

    1. Re:Roland... by hopemafia · · Score: 4, Interesting

      By now it should be clear that Roland is either one of the slashdot editors in disguise, or a close friend of one of them.

      --
      If God had had a computer it would have taken him 7 months to create the earth...if he even bothered to do it at all.
  16. Roland by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Yet another Roland story. You know, you'd think that if there was enough outrage about this (which I'm SURE the editors are more than aware of) they would have the common decency to listen to their readership instead of just posting more Roland stories.

    For as much as I love Slashdot, there exists little recourse for people who want their input on the site to be heard, even when its on as large a scale as the current hatred of Roland posts.

    --
    Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
  17. Storage by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 4, Informative

    Long-term storage of hydrogen is still a bit of a problem. Hydrogen has a tendency to penetrate ANYTHING you try to store it in, resulting in hydrogen embrittlement. In short, anything you store hydrogen in (esp. pressurized hydrogen) will eventually become weakened by the hydrogen permeating it.

    --
    retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
  18. size and efficiency by TamMan2000 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    1. That's pretty damned cool. Gas Turbines are some of the most efficient fuel -> energy converters known to man.

    You will also notice that (in general) the smaller the gas turbine, the less efficient.

    I have been to multiple talks on these engines, I used to work for one of the industry colaborators on the project as an aerodynamicist. These engines are no exception to that rule. The turbine on these engines hardly extracts enough work to run the compresser when you are running the combuster just below the melting point of the engine.

    Also (addressing the summary, not the parent post), these things have been "2-3 years away" for at least 6 years.

    --
    "I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
  19. Re:What about pollution? by Ignignot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well, IAAEE (I am an electrical engineer) and I'm gunna have to say that the turbine is going to have to transform its output voltage somehow anyway. Not that transformers deplete much power at all, but still, it is almost certainly more efficient to use a transformer after the turbine than screwing with the turbine to produce different voltage / frequencies. Also, the tiny turbine is going to have to rectify to dc power also. AC power is the "natural" form of electricity produced by power plants. It always requires an extra step to get dc. Finally, there is an economy of scale involved. A small turbine is simply not going to be as efficient as a large one. I would expect one that small to be nowhere near as efficient as a power plant. I would expect that the difference in efficiency of turbines would more than equal out the benefit of avoiding transformation (which is a very efficient process, for good transformers at least).

    The important question is actually, which one weighs more? Which one is cheaper to use? Seriously, who cares about the environmental effects. We have millions and millions of big engines in the form of cars, a few hundred thousand small gas turbines aren't going to matter much.

    --
    I submitted this story last night, and it didn't get posted.
  20. Re:MOD PARENT UP by AbbyNormal · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Fluff?

    I dunno, I found this article very interesting.

    Also, did you actually read some of the other stories on his blog? Mongolian monks and fish? Hydrogen Economy? Phoning Home from the Bottom of the Ocean?

    I actually found that blog to be quite interesting and unlike most, he took the time to post illustrations. I say: Good job Slashdot! That was indeed a "News for Nerds" article.

    --
    Sig it.
  21. 1 million rpm? by museumpeace · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I saw this in TR yesteday and, given my dismal batting average with the /. eds, just let it slide.
    A better TR article blasts "hydrogen hype" but in fact H2 would be about the best fuel for these little buzzers:
    • a fuel spill will dissapate very rapidly
    • the byproduct, in answer to the questions posted re pollution is just water.
    A set of bearings however will be an awsome thing to handle the gyroscopic reaction torques as you wave your jet powered cellphone about. You turn the corner, the phone does not. I don't have my old physics books handy but the linear velocity of a point on the tip of a blade is
    1000000*60*2*pi*0.6/(12*5280) = 3570 mile/hour
    and is changing direction 180 degrees about 2000000 times a minute. The F=MA to pull this constant direction change will be staggering unless M is damn near zero.
    And aren't you just all breathless, when the "batteries die", to take your cellphone to the out-of-work airline mechanic who got re-trained at a watch factory ?
    --
    SLASHDOT: news for people who can't concentrate on work or have no life at all and got tired of yelling back at the TV.
  22. See same story from 1997 by Animats · · Score: 4, Informative
    Here's a very similar article from 1997, from the same guy at MIT, making about the same claims. They sounded closer to success back then.

    They've been working on this since 1993, and in 1997 they said they'd have it working in three years. In 2004, they say they'll have it working in three years.

    It doesn't work yet. They can fabricate the individual parts, but it doesn't really generate power.

    It's not an unreasonable idea, but if this was going to work, there should already be little gas turbine powerplants a few inches long, machined out of metal by standard techniques. The smallest turbines available weight around 1.5Kg, and are used for model aircraft, and they don't have to run for very long. There's a "microturbine" industry, but they mean 10KW units taller than a man.

    Little turbines are hard. Automotive turbines and light-plane turbines have been attempted many times, but have never been cost-effective.

    1. Re:See same story from 1997 by One+Louder · · Score: 4, Funny
      They've been working on this since 1993, and in 1997 they said they'd have it working in three years. In 2004, they say they'll have it working in three years.
      It sounds like their schedule will fit nicely with the Moller Skycar.
  23. Two lessons for you: by Engineer-Poet · · Score: 4, Informative
    1. Wikipedia is not trustworthy.
    2. The microturbines the authors appear to be talking about are in the neighborhood of 30 kilowatts and bigger, not 15 watts. A non-micro turbine would have an output of megawatts; some are capable of hundreds of megawatts.
  24. Re:MOD PARENT UP by jmays · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Roland generally posts a link to an (interesting) article on a technology site and then paraphrases it under the guise of a 'useful summary'. He offers zero insight and could instead just submit the original article without his unnecessary boring commentary. It is filtered and it is bullshit.

    --
    KARMA TAG! You're it.
  25. Or at dinner... by jpetts · · Score: 4, Funny

    Beats blaming it on the dog I guess... :)

    A guy goes to dinner with his girlfriend's family, and finds he is a bit windy about the arse. Anyway, he is sitting down at table, and the family dog is lying down behind his chair, so he figures he'll try a little experiment. So, he shifts his weight to his left cheek, and squeezes out a fairly quiet fart.

    The mother looks up at the noise, and says "Baron!" (this being the dog's name). Encouraged, the guy lets out another one, quite a bit louder this time.

    Again, the mother looks up, and exclaims "Baron!" in a more urgent tone.

    By now the guy figures he's got carte blanche for whatever trouser stunts he wants to pull, so he let's rip with all his might, and lets one go that sounds like the curtains are being ripped in half!

    At this, the mother stands up, panic-stricken, and shouts "Baron! Get away from that man before he shits all over you!"

    --
    Call me old fashioned, but I like a dump to be as memorable as it is devastating - Bender
  26. Business Plan by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 4, Insightful
    1. Subscribe to MIT Technology Review, other science mags.
    2. Summarize an article from each issue on my ad-banner-laden weblog
    3. Submit my journal link to a web site whose name is synonymous with overwhelming floods of HTTP traffic
    4. Profit?
  27. Re:What about pollution? by SpecBear · · Score: 4, Funny

    Damp patch? You're worried about a damp patch??
    I'd be more worried about having blades rotating a million times a minute right next to my genitals!