Posted by nicksanspam on November 27, 2005, 5:30 am
Using the top makes thermal sense, altho that seems to make the exhaust
plumbing more complex and potentially leaky. Where does condensation go?
It would be nice to take care of that automatically, or avoid generation
unless there's a need for heat, in order to waste less fuel.
Posted by AJH on November 27, 2005, 4:29 pm
On 27 Nov 2005 00:30:27 -0500, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
Easiest way is to keep two exhausts, just cap the end of the one you
don't want to use. With a bit of ingenuity a slide which can cover one
outlet but never two can be connected to a waxstat in the hot water
Posted by JoeSP on November 27, 2005, 5:57 pm
Lots of good ideas here, but putting an air-cooled generator inside isn't a
good one. Carbon monoxide levels will be marginal at best, the noise has
got to be intolerable after awhile. The fire risk is not only very real, but
it will probably cancel your insurance policy as well.
Liquid-cooled powerplants are a much better choice. The coolant can be
plumbed inside through radiators with very little risk to human health and
Posted by RF Dude on November 28, 2005, 2:53 am
Yeah... we are hobbiests that work within our means.... So having an air
cooled generator is a gimme at our price point. Improving overall
efficiency by using waste heat for hot water turns it into a co-generation
plant. By the numbers, these small engines are only about 15% efficient at
electricity out versus energy in. Does anyone know what the energy loss
split is between heat out the exhaust versus heat out the radiator?
Posted by Me on November 28, 2005, 7:22 pm
The ROT (rule of thumb) for diesel engines is:
33% out the crankshaft
33% out the exhaust stack
33% out the cooling system
Me who cogenerates with 1800 rpm diesels..........