Re: [multimachine] Re: My wife submitted this to the PBS "NOW" program contest
- Hello ScottAfter looking at the website and the photo's on it, he has way too many parts.The two cylinders and the other stuff that are there are kind of redunant.A more convential engine might be more inline for a third world country.It would only have a few more parts.Something like the MM a high RPM engine with low torque would not as good as a lower speed but high torque engine.The rubber O-rings that he iis useing for piston ring,might be fine for the low pressure he is speaking about useing. Higher pressuses would call for something like a steel ring.He has made no way to reverse the engine Or control the valve cutoff to get the most efficient use of steam.His model are nice, but will they stand up to day in, day out use?Keith
twofouroh <bhu678@...> wrote:
Absolutely. He has really gone the long way around the barn. The
only plus I see is the high RPM it makes (for a steam engine). But
start adding up all of the hard-to-get/ expensive parts, exposed
lubrication points, and abundant failure modes, and this doesn't look
at all practical for the third world. I don't see how he intends to
return his torque at full load either, unless he intends to bolt both
ends down to something substantial.
--- In multimachine@ yahoogroups. com, "Jeff" <jhan5en@... > wrote:
> I still don't see a much advantage over a conventional design. He
> simply moved the pivot point of the piston to the top of the housing
> instead of below the piston in a slide. This complicated the joint
> because now the joint needs to swivel and hold pressure while having
> a big enough through hole to supply steam for the piston. The wobble
> plate design can be an advantage in hydraulic pumps because the
> degree of wobble in the plate is adjustable so that it has an
> adjustable flow rate but I don't see where he has taken advantage of
> this feature. I haven't reviewed the patent but it appears that a
> shaft with a U joint could do the same job as the flex shaft.
> --- In multimachine@ yahoogroups. com, "Pierre Coueffin"
> <pcoueffin@> wrote:
> > On 6/9/07, Tim Schmidt <timschmidt@ > wrote:
> > > On 6/10/07, keith gutshall <drpshops@> wrote:
> > > > The link to the steam engine was interesting,
> > > > he had a novel way to get reciprocation in to rotation
> > >
> > > Yeah. Unfortunately, it's also patented. There are plenty of
> ways to
> > > build stem engines though.
> > I see the patent as an advantage. I try to spend a few hours a
> > browsing through expired patents at uspto.gov... I figure that in
> > years or so, I'll be able to do whatever I want with what I learned
> > from the flexible driveshaft patent. I can do non-commercial
> > with it now without any hassle. If I have a burning need to do
> > something commercial with it, I can just send Mister Green a
> > and buy a license from him.
Deep Run Portage
" The Lizard Works"
Park yourself in front of a world of choices in alternative vehicles.
Visit the Yahoo! Auto Green Center.
- Hello PierreI going to give a lesson in Steam 101 for the steam impaired.Saturated Steam, is any steam that is still in contact with the water in the boiler.Most of the small boiler for hobby use are of this type.Superheated steam, additional heat is added without any increase in pressuse.So if you pipe the steam for the boiler to the prime mover( your engine, turbine,ect) you are operateing it off Saturted Steam.To get Superheated Steam you pipe the Steam through a pipe in the firebox to get the extra heat. Than to you prime mover. Superheating steam gains efficicency in the heat cycle this wayThese are simple terms for the lesson only.Note : Most of the nuclear power plants use saturated steam because there is no way to get the extra heat .
Pierre Coueffin <pcoueffin@...> wrote:On 6/14/07, Randy Kramer <rhkramer@gmail. com> wrote:
> On Wednesday 13 June 2007 10:45 pm, Darwin Wandler wrote:
> > The entropy of steam makes it 100 times more powerful than internal
> > combustion
> > engines.
> For those of us who failed thermodynamics, could you expound a little, or
> point to some links?
First of all, consider that the biggest nuclear power plants typically
use a steam turbine to convert thermonuclear power into mechanical
energy to run the generator.
http://www.avn. be/uk/4_nucleair e/tecchp05. asp
The energy from the nuclear reaction boils the water into superheated
steam (thus cooling the reactor and preventing melt-down!) and the
steam is fired into a turbine to spin the generator. You can't easily
get straight from heat-energy to electricity in large quantities.
> I always thought gasoline was one of the most concentrated forms of
> (combustible, as opposed to say nuclear) energy. Does steam contain more
> energy? What temperature and PSI of steam must you attain to be in the same
> ballpark as gasoline? (Or am I asking the wrong questions?)
Plastic explosives, nitroglycerine, etc all carry much more
concentrated energy than gasoline. Diesel fuel can be used with
higher efficiency. The advantages of gasoline are that it is not too
expensive, and is not so powerful that you blow up a lot of engines...
With an internal combustion engine, you need to contain a small
explosion, and capture energy from it. The tradeoffs that stem from
that are what make things interesting.
Steam, compressed air, hydraulic fluid, and hydrogen are methods used
to store and transfer energy, not really fuels. The reason I say that
is that when you burn wood, gasoline, kerosene, or some other fuel it
gives up more energy than you put into getting the fuel.
When you burn hydrogen, obtained by electrolysis of water, the energy
that you put into the water is greater than the energy that comes from
Don Lancaster has a lot of very interesting things for tinkerers and
other mad-science types:
http://www.tinaja. com/h2gas01. asp
Think of steam like a driveshaft or like belts and pulleys... They get
the energy from the fire to the spindle, they do not provide the power
Deep Run Portage
" The Lizard Works"
Shape Yahoo! in your own image. Join our Network Research Panel today!