Re: THERMO-DYNE MACHINE
- I enjoyed reading the material and looking at the diagram. From the
diagram I am assuming two different gas systems that exchange heat. Do
you have a working model of this device?
On a side note Tesla researched a principal called energy wells. The
device used a partial vacuum to cause boiling in water at a low
temperature. Since water could be made to boil at ambient temperature
all that was necessary was a source of cold water to condense the fluid.
The boiling point of water can be lowered to 32F with low pressure. The
principal was based on the child's toy the cryophros. This device
consists of two glass bulbs partially filled with water. Just the
temperature of the body causes the water inside to boil.
Boyd cantrell wrote:
> THERMO-DYNE MACHINE
> by Boyd Cantrell
> The real meat of this begins about 2/3 of the way down at the three lines
> of asterisks, But you should read the first part first so that you will
> know how the apparatus is constructed.
> This disclosure is of an apparatus that is intended to convert some of the
> ambient temperature heat energy of the atmosphere into mechanical energy.
> First off let me tell you that the books say that it can't be done. Before
> I show how it can be done I will first show you what the books say. The
> following is right out of the books.
> " No one has ever devised a way of changing any of the completely
> random motion of the molecules of a material medium in thermal equilibrium
> into the coordinated motion that represents macroscopic mechanical energy,
> in such a way that the only resulting effect is the cooling (decrease in
> microscopic mechanical energy) of the material medium; the second
> principle of thermodynamics asserts that it is impossible to do so.
> The second principle of thermodynamics is an inference from
> experience that embodies the above ideas, for example, that of the
> nonutilizability of the heat of the oceans or the atmosphere. From this
> second principle a great many detailed conclusions can be drawn, all of
> which are in agreement with experiment. This agreement gives us complete
> confidence in the universal applicability of the principle."
> Okay thats right out of the books. Note the words "assert, inference,
> confidence and agreement with". Now I will show that it is not only
> possible to convert some of the ambient temperature heat energy into
> macroscopic (visible) mechanical energy, But that it was being done by an
> apparatus over 50 years ago and no one bothered to change the books. That
> apparatus is the little novelty Drinking Bird which uses R-11 as it's
> working fluid and continuously dips down to take a drink of water. The
> water evaporates, creating a cooler reservoir causing the refrigerant
> inside to condense. This bird is a cyclic device that works on ambient
> temperature heat energy and I say that it gets around the second law of
> Now there are those who will say that it does not get around the second
> law, that it creates it's own cooler reservoir and follows all of the laws
> of physics. Then I say to them HURRAH ! So lets forget about words,
> interpretations of the book and get on with real world stuff. Now I do not
> propose building a giant drinking bird. I just want to establish the fact
> that the bird converts ambient temperature heat energy into mechanical
> energy in an amount that is sufficient to overcome it's own frictional
> losses and still work. Now that the fact has been established, Let's think
> about other ways! Such as the following!
> I call my proposed apparatus a THERMO-DYNE, from the greek words Heat and
> Energy. Now I want to point out that this apparatus ( like all others )
> will have losses and keeping these losses to the very minimum is paramount.
> Thats why I have never tryed to build it. It could be built by NASA or
> some orginazation like that. But before getting into losses I want to
> explain the concept it'self.
> Let's use an Air Conditioner to extract and consentrate the ambient
> temperature heat of the atmosphere and add to it the heat from the work of
> compression. Now let's put that heat into a backwards Air conditioner (
> Heat engine ). I called it a backwards Air conditioner because it operates
> on the same kind of refrigerant as the forward Air conditioner. Now in
> reality the Air conditioner can not really work backwards as an Engine
> because it has no liquid feed pump, so let's give it one and let's install
> a drive shaft between the two units so that the engine side can power the
> Air conditioner side. For the sake of making a sketch let's put the Air
> conditioner compressor on the left end of the shaft and the engine on the
> right end.
> Please understand that there are two seperate refrigerant systems here.
> The gas of the Air conditioner side does not go into the engine side. But
> it DOES transfer it's heat to the other side through a heat exchanger.
> Let's call that Heat exchanger ( B ) and position it above the two units in
> the center of the page.
> I like to speak of energy expended as horsepower. One horsepower ( which
> must take place in one minute ) is equal to 42.416 BTU per minute. Or one
> horsepower for 60 minutes is equal to 2545 BTU per hour. So when I say one
> horsepower of heat you will know what I mean.
> Now the engine side powers the Air conditioner compressor which delivers
> six horsepower of heat for one horsepower of mechanical energy. Now that
> is a fact and sounds really great but it's not so great because if all
> that heat goes back down hill to the ambient temperature atmosphere from
> which it came it can not produce more than the one horsepower of
> mechanical energy that caused the six horsepower in heat energy to be
> rejected in the first place. The best way to see that is to first see the
> Air conditioner using one horsepower of mechanical energy to deliver the
> six horsepower of heat. Then imagine that six horsepower of heat going
> right back down through that Air conditioner to where it came from paying
> back that one horsepower of mechanical energy. The efficiency going
> backwards like this would be 1 devided by 6 = 16% or the reciprocal of the
> COPhp of the Heat pump. Now, not only is there no gain but we have those
> losses that I mentioned earlyer.
> So do we give up like those people before us or do we keep looking for an
> answer because we know that if the little bird can do it then there must be
> an even better way, As much better than the Bird as Compression
> refrigeration is over evaporative cooling. So we keep on trying and some
> day WHAMMO, We see the light. Not only does this Air conditioner have a
> hot side but it has a cold side too. That means that we can use that cold
> side to create a cold reservoir that is colder than the ambient temperature
> air so that the heat on the engine side can travel FURTHER DOWN A
> TEMPERATURE HILL THAN WHERE THE WORK OF COMPRESSION BEGAN AT AMBIENT
> TEMPERATURE AT THE COMPRESSOR IN PUSHING IT UP HILL and we do this at NO
> EXTRA COST because this cold side is already there.
> Now we need a heat exchanger positioned at the bottom. Let's call it heat
> exchanger C. It's purpose is to let the Air conditioner take some of it's
> input heat from the engine exhaust gas (only to cool that exhaust gas so
> that it will condense before it goes to the liquid feed pump ) and we then
> go and pick up additional heat from the atmosphere at a heat exchanger we
> will call A which is positioned on the left side of the compressor before
> returning to the compressor for the next cycle.
> Now we also see that when we absorbed heat from the exhausted engine gas
> then that caused that gas to condense so that the liquid feed pump can send
> the liquid back up to heat exchanger B to be boiled again by the heat
> comming from the left side. Let's draw a little feed pump right on the
> shaft so we can see that action.
> Now let's think about this concept. It is a continuous cycle and may not
> be so easy to see both happenings.
> So let's break it down into two events. I'm going to use the second event
> first because you will remember it from high school science class. Thats
> where the teacher boiled a little bit of water in a metal can and then
> turned the fire off and put the cap on the can. Pretty soon the steam
> began to cool and condense and you saw the pressure of the atmosphere crush
> the can. Now thats the happening from the cold side of our Air
> conditioner. But there is also a hot side happening. To see that let's
> take that crushed can and turn the fire back on under it. As the water
> boils and turns to steam it strightens the can back out. In our case it
> will be backwards. That is, first we use heat to strighten the can out
> and then when the heat is removed we crush the can for free. That
> crushing action represents work that would have been thrown away before
> like steam engines did before they invented Condensers.
> Now you don't have to be a genius to see that there is a double whammy here
> once this is explained to you. Heat Engines are not very efficient but you
> can have a double whammy
> that is not possible with electric Electric motors, Hydraulic motors or any
> other kind of Prime mover. Now you say "But even the modern day Condenser
> equipped steam turbine with it's double whammy is only 40% efficient".
> Well you are absolutely correct, BUT what if that steam turbine could get
> it's heat from the atmosphere at a COP of five for one like an Air
> conditioner does and then add the heat from the work of compression for a
> total of six horsepower of heat ? Then at 40% efficiency thats 2.4
> horsepower produced.
> Now obviously we can't power a steam turbine with an Air conditioner
> because of the temperatures of the reservoirs that is required for water,
> so let's use somthing that boils at a lower temperature like the
> refrigerant in an Air conditioner and then build the backwards Air
> conditioner ( heat engine that runs on Refrigerant ). If you really
> understand the concept you will know that the only thing that could prevent
> this from working is if the losses are to great. I believe that with the
> heat insulations of today it can be made to work.
> Now that you have come this far I must explain that this vacuum or crushing
> action will not actually take place in our condenser like it does in a real
> world steam engine. The steam engine condenser cooling comes from river
> water or cooling towers and is way below the boiling point of water
> resulting in that vacuum. Now in our case we do not have the vacuum on
> the engine side but Mother Nature gave us somthing in exchange for that.
> She gave us excess pressure on the input to the compressor on the Air
> conditioner side and it amounts to much more than the 28.5 inches of vacuum
> found in steam turbine Condensers which is about 1.5 psia. We will not
> have that low 1.5 psia in our condenser. We will have 14.7 psia which is
> not good but we can gain much more on the left side than we give up on the
> right side depending on what refrigerant we use.
> I especially like the pressure of R-410A. It shows that at a suction
> temperature of 40 degrees F. the R-410A has a pressure of 132 psia. and
> at a condensing temperature of 100 degrees it has a pressure of 331 psia.
> The compressor is pushing hot gas to heat exchanger B that transfers the
> heat to the refrigerant on the right side that powers the heat engine. So
> the back pressure on the compressor is 331 psia and the forward pressure
> then on the engine ( which is on the same shaft ) is also 331 psia. So
> they cancel each other out. This leaves 132 psia on the input to the
> compressor and one atmosphere on the output of the engine ( which again is
> the same shaft ). So 132 minus 14.7 leaves 117 psia over and above
> everything to do work at the output shaft.
> Now that is NOT static pressure. Those figures that you are looking at are
> from actual refrigeration units in operation. The ASHRAE Engineers show
> how many BTUs are moved for one horsepower between those two temperature
> reservoirs. So in an abstract way of thinking you can visualize it
> backwards and know that instead of requiring one horsepower to compress,
> it would deliver MORE than one horsepower while being UN-compressed at
> the engine because the heat is going further down a temperature hill than
> where the work of compression began at ambient temperature to push it up
> hill. That of course is before losses.
> I almost forgot to point out one other fact. Real world Steam turbine
> efficiencys are just ( Turbine only ) It does not include boiler losses
> which are substantial. Our apparatus will not waste that substantial
> amount of energy by blowing it into the atmosphere before the Engine even
> sees it like the Boilers of steam power plants do. And of course ours won't
> create acid rain or nuclear waste.
> I can't take credit for this double whammy thing ( except for naming it ).
> It's been here ever since they added the first Condenser to a steam
> engine. Actually the first Steam engines worked on vacuum only. Then
> later they used the pressure of the steam because it gave more power. Then
> later yet they incorporated a Condencer utilizing both pressure and vacuum.
> 9-22-99 I am always perfecting this thing in my mind. The latest
> modification would be yet another heat exchanger to reclaim the heat
> exhausted by the engine and put it back into the refrigerant comming out of
> the liquid feed pump so as to cause less work to be done at the compressor.
> (Especially in cold climates).
> Now if you feel that the Double whammy is not enough then look at this next
> little added attraction.
> They rate Engines with ( efficiency ) and they rate Refrigerators with (
> co-efficiency ). Most people say ( coefficient of performance ) or simply
> ( C.O.P. ) Now if it's a Heat pump then it's going to be ( C.O.P. hp. )
> because there you get to add the heat from the work of compression to the
> heat that was extracted.
> As I explained earlyer, the output of a Heat pump would be the reciprocal
> of what it is if you used the Heat pump backwards as a Heat engine. Now we
> know that some refrigerants have a better COP than others. Okay then we
> would want to use the best one for the heat pump side. But we would want
> to use one with a poor COP for the Engine.
> Before continuing I want to nail down some exact refrigerants. I know that
> later we will find some that will work even better. But for now I give you
> R-610 ( Ethyl Ether ) with a COP of 5.74 to 1 for the Heat pump side and
> R-170 ( Ethane) with a COP of 2.41 to 1 for the Engine side. These COPs
> are based on a 5 degree F. Evaporating temperature and an 86 degree F.
> Condensing temperature. This data comes from the 1985 ASHRAE Fundamentals
> Handbook, Table 7 of 16.8 and 16.9 Now if you can find better ones from
> newer books then thats great but for now I 'll go with these.
> Let's say that with Ethyl Ether in the Heat pump we do one horsepower of
> work on the compressor and it extracts 5.74 horsepower of heat and adds
> the one horsepower of heat from the work of compression to it and rejects
> 6.74 horsepower of heat. To get technical thats 42.416 B.T.U. per
> Horsepower X 6.74 horsepower. But going backwards as an Engine the
> efficiency would be the reciprocal of 6.74/1 or 1/6.74 or 1 devided by
> 6.74 = 14.8% efficient. Thats not good enough to use on the Engine side so
> lets use the Ethane because it has a poor COPhp in the forward mode which
> means that it would work good in the reverse mode for Engine efficiency.
> You may want to give that some thought before continuing. I say that it
> can't be wrong. What goes up must come down. When it went up the losses
> are there but not lost because they come out as heat and heat is what the
> Heat pump is all about. Now when it comes back down we will have the
> undesirable mechanical losses of the Engine which is about 30% in this case
> because we don't have to contend with the Carnot equations for the
> efficiency of an ideal engine since we already have it. We have the real
> world COPhp of the Ethane in a real world Heat pump.
> Let's see how good that Ethane will be as the working fluid in the Engine.
> Let's take that Cop of 2.41 to 1 and add what would have been the heat
> from the work of compression for a total of 3.41 and look at it's
> reciprocal. 1 devided by 3.41 = 29.3% efficiency. Now let's go back to
> the 6.74 horsepower of heat rejected by the Heat pump when using
> Ethyl-Ether. Let's say we loose 10% at Heat exchanger B. Okay that leaves
> 6.06 horsepower in heat going to the Engine. The Engine ( if perfect )
> using Ethane would have converted 29.3% ( the reciprocal of what it
> would have been as a Heat pump ). So 6.06 x .293 leaves 1.775 horsepower.
> But the mechanical efficiency of that Engine is only 70%, so 70% of 1.775
> leaves 1.24 horsepower. Now We use 1 horsepower to run the Compressor
> leaving .24 horsepower and we use .1 horsepower for the liquid feed pump.
> This leaves .14 horsepower to do external work. And thats not even
> counting the double whammy effect in case you don't believe in that part.
> Now the losses of Heat exchanger C were not counted because they are after
> the Engine and we are picking up all the additional heat that we need at
> the atmospheric heat exchanger A. Heat exchanger C after the Engine needs
> to be good enough to remove enough heat to cause the Ethane to condense and
> that should be easy due to the fact that 10% of the heat was lost at heat
> exchanger B and of that which was left 29.3% x 70% or 20% was converted
> into work by the Engine.
> Now Remember! I am not asking for more Heat energy than is available in the
> ambient temperature atmosphere.
> One last thought about working fluids that would have a poor COP in the
> forward mode but would be good for Engine efficiency in the reverse mode.
> I'm sure that there must be many working fluids out there that have a poor
> COP and a few that have a really bad COP and they are not even listed in
> the books. Why should they be? Nobody ever wanted them before.
> Afterthought, It has occured to me that this apparatus need not be built
> in ordered to prove this COP versus Efficiency concept. ASHRAE has already
> proved the different COPs of some different Refrigerants in the forward
> mode. All that is left to prove is that these differences also exist in
> the reverse mode as efficiencys. Common sence tells me that it has to be a
> fact. But how can we prove it without building this whole thing? Is there
> an easy way to do it and then search for working fluids with really bad
> COPs to use in the Engine side ?
> 7-21-99 A few days ago I realized that it has to be true that a
> refrigerant with a good COP in the forward mode would surely have to have a
> bad efficiency in the reverse mode and vice versa. For this to not be a
> fact would violate the law of conservation of energy. Think about it! If
> you do work to push the heat up hill then when it comes back down hill it
> can not pay back more than went up or less than went up ( except for losses
> of course ). I stated one time years ago that an Ideal gas would not have
> a good COP in a refrigerator because it can not go through a phase change
> like the real gases do. Fortunately our refrigerators are not limited to
> using an Ideal gas.
> Now today I can say the same for my THERMO-DYNE machine. That is that it
> could not work as described if it were limited to an Ideal gas instead of
> these real gases where one is best for a heat pump while the other is best
> for the heat engine.
> Does anyone have any ideas on how to test different refrigerants to prove
> that one with a poor COP working backwards in a heat engine would have a
> good efficiency? Logic says that it has to work that way but the world
> needs proof.
> Sincerely, Boyd Cantrell
> Name: sketch tiff1.tif
> sketch tiff1.tif Type: TIFF Image (image/x-tiff)
> Encoding: base64