June 15, 2007 at 1:03 pm
I think the wheel is a pretty cool gadget, as is the stone club and the axle.
June 15, 2007 at 4:30 pm
I thought Steve was going to say the tractor or the riding lawnmower was his favorite gadget.
June 15, 2007 at 8:23 pm
How's 'bout running Steve's riding lawnmower underwater?
I'm the luckiest guy in the world… my Dad made the coolest "gadget" I've ever seen except it's not a gadget… it's a new fuel…
When I was in the Navy, the newer torpedoes (new, back then) ran on a mono-propellant fuel known as "OTTO" fuel… named after the guy who invented it.
A mono-propellant fuel is a fuel that carries it's own oxidizer and works well in anaerobic environments. In English, that means the fuel needs no air to burn. Imagine an M1-Abrams crossing a river by driving underwater without a snorkel!!!
The problems with Otto fuel are many… when it burns, it creates a form of Cyanide lethal to all forms of life. It is impact sensitive and the more you heat it the more sensitive it becomes. And, it doesn't create a simple explosion… it detonates much like C4 does. If the explosion doesn't kill you, the toxic gas will. Without burning, if you breath Otto fuel fumes for about 10 or 15 minutes, your body instantly becomes addicted to it… so much so that when you stop breathing the fumes, you die of a heart attack. When Otto fuel gets cold, it separates into some of it's component parts and becomes useless. If you get Otto fuel on your skin, you can get sick. Otto fuel burns so dirty, that you can only get one run out of an engine and then you need to rebuild the engine. Of course, all the materials and liquids to clean the engine become toxic waste bio-hazards of the worst kind. If you swallow Otto fuel (by accident, of course J ), you die.
To me, Otto fuel is so dangerous to handle and hold in torpedoes, mobile underwater targets, etc, that I wondered why the Navy even allowed it never mind in confined environments like submarines. So, about 10 years ago, I told my Dad about it. Serendipitously, the Navy issued an SBIR (Small Business Innovation Research) for the creation of a new mono-propellant. That led to the invention of "MODEN" fuel and the Navy and a well known university are evaluating it as a replacement for Otto fuel.
Moden fuel has been subjected to many, many tests…
It will not detonate when a 50 caliber rifle is fired into a closed pipe filled with Moden fuel.
During the bon-fire test, Moden fuel almost put out the fire when the four plastic 50 gallon drums finally melted through.
A 50 gallon drum was filled with Moden fuel and a 30 gram gunpowder charge was set of inside the fuel… the fuel shot 30 feet in the air through the bung-hole of the drum but there was no explosion and no fire.
When Moden fuels burns, it gives off Carbon-Dioxide and water… that's right… the byproducts of combustion of Moden fuel are heat and seltzer water. Moden fuel is so environmentally benign, that if you water it down, you can gargle with it and it'll actually whiten your teeth.
Moden fuel will not separate at Arctic temperatures.
A huge side benefit is that if you run Moden fuel through a special catalyst, it makes a drinkable liquid and Oxygen… the boys on the Kursk sure could have used that. Moden fuel is also capable of being used as a maneuvering jet and APU (Auxilary Power Unit) fuel for space vehicles (not to mention being a source of Oxygen and water in an emergency).
Moden fuel is more energetic, pound for pound, that those high priced, long to recharge Lithium Ion batteries. Used on submersibles, that provides a true "Gas'nGO" capability where with Lithium Ion, you have a 16+ hour recharge time and vehicle recovery/relaunch costs.
Moden fuel leaves no wake making the vehicle virtually undetectable.
Moden fuel works in most turbines and diesel engines with little modification. It'll run Stirling engines with NO modification (Swedish subs run on "Lox and Rocks" {fuel oil and liquid Oxygen} powered Stirling Engines).
And, the cost of Moden fuel is only about 25% that of Otto fuel not to mention the savings from easier cleanups and safer stowage and handling than Otto fuel.
I know, sounds like a huge commercial… but I just had to brag a bit. I'm just tickled that dear ol' Dad figured out a way to make things safer for the boys in blue 'cause I used to be one of them.
Wish us luck with the Navy and university evaluations… if you think you have an application that would benefit from such a fuel, please don't hesitate to PM me. If you are or were on subs, write to your Congressman/woman and tell them to get Otto fuel off of subs!!
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
June 17, 2007 at 11:54 pm
If anyone's still watching this, I happened to come across something very super-cool Friday afternoon. This: Wowwee Dragon Fly
Now, it has been called a robot, easy to control, and 'crashproof' but it is none of those things. It is not a programmable robot, it is kind of hard to control, and it crashes almost every flight, but it doesn't break so maybe that's what they mean. It is less frustrating than most RC flying toys, and once you practice, you can fly it in a living room. Won't fly outside, or at altitudes as high as Evergreen, CO or higher. Flies OK in Lakewood, about 5500ft I think. For 50 bucks, this is a very cool toy, but it does crash a lot so it gets pretty beat up. Not broken mind you, but the paint comes off and you might need to tape the nose together. Not much flying time on a single charge though, and takes 20 minutes to refuel, so I might get another one. From the reviews, there seems to be a quality control issue with this product, so if you get one that can't gain altitude, won't steer, won't fly straight and level, etc, take it back and try another one. I also noticed that my spare set of wings was not as good as the first set (which are fine, I was just testing), and that my Dragon Fly turns to the left better than the right. It takes a few charge cycles to get to full strength too.
June 18, 2007 at 6:29 am
Jeff, that is way cool. Good luck on getting that approved (hope your dad got a good patent on it!)
June 18, 2007 at 9:41 am
Jeff that is cool and I'm glad to be back.
And I'm not that thrilled with the tractor or mower as a "gadget". They're more tools, requiring me to do work. Or at least sit outside and maintain the yard.
June 18, 2007 at 9:56 am
Hi Jeff,
Thank you for boasting about your Father. I think given that yesterday was a day to honour our Fathers your timing was right on. I am extremely happy to hear of his contribution to my safety and enjoyment of our world.
Also, Steve, I agree about the tractor being a tool. Now if someone would just invent a gadget to automatically follow that tractor with refreshing beverages...
~Michael T
June 18, 2007 at 6:02 pm
Thanks, Aders, Steve, and Michael!
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
April 5, 2011 at 5:51 am
This is for Jeff Moden.
Could you kindly update us on the current status of this wonderful (Moden) fuel that your dad had formulated back in 2000?
For example, is it now available commercially, has it proven as energetic as the Otto fuel it was supposed to have replaced in underwater applications, what is the route for knowing more about its commercial usage aspects, etc.?
Regards
Maneeshi
April 5, 2011 at 6:57 am
maneeshi_trivedi (4/5/2011)
This is for Jeff Moden.Could you kindly update us on the current status of this wonderful (Moden) fuel that your dad had formulated back in 2000?
For example, is it now available commercially, has it proven as energetic as the Otto fuel it was supposed to have replaced in underwater applications, what is the route for knowing more about its commercial usage aspects, etc.?
Regards
Maneeshi
Yes, the fuel has been measured to be as energetic as Otto fuel and a couple million times safer for the environment. In fact, there are 3 "flavors" of the fuel and "MFX" (the name of the 3rd "flavor") has an energy density that's higher than Otto fuel and, given the right engine, an energy density a fair bit higher than Lithium Ion batteries (not to mention the gas'n'go capabilites of the fuel).
Being U.S. Patriots, we wanted this product to go to the U.S. Navy. Unfortunately, our biggest problem has been the bureaucracy of both the U.S. Navy and DOD related companies. As a result, we currently have no "commercial route" and, even if we did, my Dad has been reluctant to commercialize it.
It's all a shame, really. I can see a thousand commercial, military, and outer space applications for the fuel.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
April 5, 2011 at 12:39 pm
Hello Jeff,
Many thanks for the update.
So, are you saying that even the US Navy is not going to be able to use this fuel?
Do you think the bureaucratic hurdles are going to kill it off?
If so, that would indeed be a real shame! What a funny world we live in!
I would be grateful if you could keep me updated of the progress to commercialize it.
Oh, I nearly forgot to ask you if an existing open-cycle turbine engine could work on Moden without modification?
Regards
Maneeshi
April 5, 2011 at 4:48 pm
The Navy COULD and SHOULD use it. They just believe that they have OTTO fuel under control (and they don't).
Open cycle turbines would work but only if you closed off the air intake ;-). This is a mono-propellent which does not require external sources of Oxygen.
Also, I have to ask, why are you so interested in this fuel?
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
April 5, 2011 at 6:35 pm
Hello Jeff,
I am doing a study on Alternative Fuels which may become commercially available over the next 5 years or so. The environmentally friendly (green) aspect is of obvious interest, including those used for underwater propulsion, (instead of using batteries), for example, offering increased endurance for remote unmanned vehicles while minimally impacting on the marine environment. And as you say, it can be used in other environments as well, producing harmless by-products such as CO2 and water.
When I came across your blog on the Gadget Forum about Moden it appeared to be an ideal fuel, ticking all the boxes, hence the interest. And who better to ask about it than you, hoping that you would not mind.
Regards
Maneeshi
April 5, 2011 at 11:10 pm
I absolutely don't mind. What is the basis of the study and how can I learn more about it and maybe even convince Dad to provide all the information and testing results we've accumulated on Moden Fuel over the years?
You also be interested in the safety aspects of the fuel. During the "bonfire" test, the fuel almost put the bonfire out when the plastic drums finally gave way from the heat. It survived the 30 gram black-squib test and the 50 caliber penetration tests with no sign of fire or detonation. If you match it up with a decent Sterling Engine, it's unbelievable what a quiet system you can build.
And, yes... not only is the exhaust composed of only H2O and CO2, but there's also zero chance of producing CO or other less than friendly gases.
Send me an email from this site and I'll put you in touch with Dad because it's his baby and I'm not at much more liberty to say anything about it without the proper paper work (NDA, Covenant not to compete, etc). Maybe the two of us can get him to understand that there IS a commercial world and with the help of such studies, the fuel can get a little exposure as a clean fuel for Anaerobic and other special environments.
As a side bar, being a former U.S. Submarine sailor, I'd really like to send OTTO fuel packing because one of its byproducts of combustion is a form of Cyanide. Tough on fish and tough on people. Breath it's non-combusted vapors for about 10 minutes and your body becomes so instantly addicted that when you stop breathing it, you die. Yeah... Pappy has the details and documentation on all that, as well.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
April 7, 2011 at 8:29 am
Hi Jeff,
Yes, I would like to take up your suggestion of looking in to what Moden can really offer.
So please indicate the route via your dad's Company leading to a possible agreement (NDA, etc). Are there other parties also involved?
Is there a more secure and private communications channel?
Kind regards
Maneeshi
Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 30 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply