Posted by duncan webster on 28/07/2022 00:07:27:
… I reckon the gas valve must be leaking, but not enough to keep the main jets burning, and as it is a semi sealed system and gas is lighter than air the gas just goes up the chimney, …
Duncan's hypothesis sounds good to me, apart from the comment 'gas is lighter than air'. Coal gas was lighter than air, natural gas isn't. Pedantic point, but I expect the leaked gas is carried away up the chimney because warm air inside the house is lighter than the cold air outside.
Chimneys are heat engines obeying the same thermodynamic laws as steam and internal combustion engines. John's comment that a pilot light is about 500W, which is a lot, made me wonder what the power consumption of Duncan's chimney might be?
Let's see if I can get the estimate right:
- Duncan reports 0.3 cubic metres being wasted overnight.
- Assuming natural gas is methane, 0.3 cubic metres weighs 0.17kg
- 0.17kg (weight on earth) is 1.667 Newtons (actual mass)
- Assume overnight is 28800 seconds (8 hours)
- Assume Duncan's chimney is 10 metres tall (distance)
- Power is the rate of transfer of energy. The transfer is moving the mass of gas over a distance (up the chimney), and the time taken is also known.
- Watts = Newtons * distance / time
W = 1.667N * 10m / 28800s
or 0.0006W
The estimate is too optimistic because the sum assumes Duncan's Chimney is 100% efficient and it will be much less. In comparison the very best full-size steam locomotives achieve about 5% efficiency. If Duncan's chimney were that good, it would need a heat source of about 0.01W to remove the gas.
Modelling steam engines is great fun, but we skip over most of the engineering. A full-size mill-engine was carefully designed to get the most useful energy out of a given weight of steam. Boilers were carefully designed to maximally convert heat from combustion into steam. The furnace and tubes were designed to burn fuel efficiently, wood requiring very different conditions from hard coal.
Last, but not least, was the Chimney. These were tall, partly to disperse concentrated pollution well above the population, but also to force the draught through the furnace. Locomotives use waste steam for the same purpose, but a blast pipe is inefficient compared with a tall chimney, which allows energy to be recovered from 'waste' steam with a condenser, feed-water heating, or process work.
As tall chimneys are expensive to build, their design must have been matched to the size of the furnaces. Anyone know how efficient chimneys and blast pipes are as heat engines? I'm guessing low compared with a blowing engine, because they replaced furnaces and tall-chimneys as a way of ventilating coal-mines.
Dave