Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Peter R Payne and proper boats.

Expand Messages
  • Richard Mundy
    Hi Matt, good to hear from you, I remember something similar using a wheelchair. Quite exiting for the occupier of the wheelchair,but it was all over quite
    Message 1 of 29 , Jan 21, 2009
      Hi Matt, good to hear from you,

      I remember something similar using a wheelchair. Quite exiting for
      the occupier of the wheelchair,but it was all over quite quickly.
      Problem with a boat is it won't go any spead unless you can get it on
      the plane, which takes a lot of energy! The boat needs to be lifted
      out and placed on top of the water.
      Even I am not optimistic enough to expect to get a pop pop to plane.

      Dick

      --- In pop-pop-steamboats@yahoogroups.com, "Sparks, Matthew -
      McClatchy Corporate" <msparks@...> wrote:
      >
      > If you really want to see what you're up against, check out the
      > mythbusters episode where they took a fiberglass speedboat hull and
      > mounted two of the large compressed air cylineders.
      >
      > http://televizzle.org/2006/12/06/air-cylinder-rocket/
      >
      > Matt Sparks -
      >
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: pop-pop-steamboats@yahoogroups.com
      > [mailto:pop-pop-steamboats@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Richard
      Mundy
      > Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 2:03 PM
      > To: pop-pop-steamboats@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: [pop-pop-steamboats] Re: Peter R Payne and proper boats.
      >
      > Hi David,
      > I think the condensing is done in the tube, which creates another
      > problem. Condensing steam in a tiny tube is a lot quicker than
      doing
      > it in a big tube.
      > An interesting aspect of Paynes original patent is using the
      momentum
      > of the returning water to compress the remaining steam in the
      boiler.
      > This should raise the boiling point so the steam has more kick to
      it.
      > If this effect is significant I have no idea.
      > More important I suspect is to have a forward facing intake and
      > valves.
      > Also, what about an output nozzle? you can significantly increase
      the
      > velocity of water coming out of a hosepipe by sticking your finger
      > over the end.
      > This would also increase the pressure in the boiler and give the
      > whole thing more go?
      >
      > Dick
      >
      >
      >
      > --- In pop-pop-steamboats@yahoogroups.com, "David Halfpenny"
      > <dh1@> wrote:
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > --------------------------------------------------
      > > From: "Richard Mundy" <coracles18@>
      > > Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 7:44 PM
      > >
      > > > As the engines grow bigger there is a need to create a lot of
      > steam a
      > > > lot faster.
      > >
      > > AND then condense a tube-full of it in a similar time, in the
      very
      > boiler
      > > you have just heated it in!
      > >
      > > That is exactly the snag that Newcomen had - though with much
      less
      > thermal
      > > capacity to heat and cool each pulse.
      > >
      > > David 1/2d
      > >
      >
      >
      >
      > ------------------------------------
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
    • Richard Mundy
      Hi Jean-Yves, you keep knocking down my skittles:-). Seriously, I value your input hugely. Apart from a few experiments perhaps 10 years ago, I am coming at
      Message 2 of 29 , Jan 21, 2009
        Hi Jean-Yves,
        you keep knocking down my skittles:-).
        Seriously, I value your input hugely. Apart from a few experiments
        perhaps 10 years ago, I am coming at this subject from a 'what if'
        angle. I remember my biscuit tin/blow lamp boat moved forwards then a
        little back per cycle. So there is a slight reverse pull on the
        intake. I suspect tho that that the valves unless very carefully
        designed would further reduce efficiency and as you suggest make the
        forward facing inlet pointless.

        On the subject of nozzles, I have no experience, I just wondered if
        it had been tried.

        Conventional boilers work at high pressure so the steam can hold more
        energy. In a pop pop the boiler is, via the water, open to the
        atmosphere. effectively like a kettle, and the steam produced is very
        rapidly condensed by contact with the water and the unlagged exit
        tube. All this accounts for at least some of the inefficiency of the
        pop pop, hence throttling the output to up the pressure and speed up
        the output flow. But will it still work? If it actually reduces
        efficiency, why?

        Dick


        --- In pop-pop-steamboats@yahoogroups.com, "Jean-Yves Renaud"
        <boite.de.j-y@...> wrote:
        >
        > Hi Dick,
        > I would like to comment 2 topics of your last post: facing intake
        and
        > nozzle.
        > 1°) Facing intake.
        > Everybody thinks at the beginning that using a facing intake (and
        > valves) could improve the performance of pop-pop propulsion. Even
        > Peter Payne thought that. But facing intake is useless, or more
        > exactly so inefficient that it becomes useless.
        > • By math demo it can be proven that the effect of such a
        > modification is negligible.
        > • For those who dislike math, there is an easy way to check
        > that sucking is far less efficient than blowing. Try to blow a
        candle
        > by sucking air!
        > • In addition, to prove this inefficiency, 2 years ago I built
        > a small boat with an electric pump to show that sucking water on
        the
        > bow has a negligible impact; though a jet backward propels. The
        > pulling force (when sucking) was roughly 20 millions times weaker
        > than the pushing one.
        > 2°) Nozzle.
        > The thrust of a waterjet evolving with the square of the velocity
        of
        > the water that is expelled it seems evident that a nozzle could
        > improve the performance. However, on a pop-pop engine a nozzle acts
        > also on the frequency, stroke volume…and this is detrimental. We
        > don't know enough to give precise figures, but it seems that the
        best
        > nozzle has a diameter reduced by only 5 to 10%. On this forum Daryl
        > is very likely the one who has got the best practical knowledge on
        > this topic. Most of his engines are provided with nozzles and his
        > engines are among the best ones if not the best.
        > Jean-Yves
        >
        >
        > --- In pop-pop-steamboats@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Mundy"
        > <coracles18@> wrote:
        > >
        > > Hi David,
        > > I think the condensing is done in the tube, which creates another
        > > problem. Condensing steam in a tiny tube is a lot quicker than
        > doing
        > > it in a big tube.
        > > An interesting aspect of Paynes original patent is using the
        > momentum
        > > of the returning water to compress the remaining steam in the
        > boiler.
        > > This should raise the boiling point so the steam has more kick to
        > it.
        > > If this effect is significant I have no idea.
        > > More important I suspect is to have a forward facing intake and
        > > valves.
        > > Also, what about an output nozzle? you can significantly increase
        > the
        > > velocity of water coming out of a hosepipe by sticking your
        finger
        > > over the end.
        > > This would also increase the pressure in the boiler and give the
        > > whole thing more go?
        > >
        > > Dick
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > --- In pop-pop-steamboats@yahoogroups.com, "David Halfpenny"
        > > <dh1@> wrote:
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > --------------------------------------------------
        > > > From: "Richard Mundy" <coracles18@>
        > > > Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 7:44 PM
        > > >
        > > > > As the engines grow bigger there is a need to create a lot of
        > > steam a
        > > > > lot faster.
        > > >
        > > > AND then condense a tube-full of it in a similar time, in the
        > very
        > > boiler
        > > > you have just heated it in!
        > > >
        > > > That is exactly the snag that Newcomen had - though with much
        > less
        > > thermal
        > > > capacity to heat and cool each pulse.
        > > >
        > > > David 1/2d
        > > >
        > >
        >
      • Richard Mundy
        Hi David, thanks for putting this into perspective, this is entirely for fun and is a subject that can be tinkered with indefinately, but as Jean- Yves points
        Message 3 of 29 , Jan 21, 2009
          Hi David,
          thanks for putting this into perspective, this is entirely for fun
          and is a subject that can be tinkered with indefinately, but as Jean-
          Yves points out, the likelyhood of a high powered big pop pop is very
          slim.
          Time to start torturing metal!!

          Dick

          --- In pop-pop-steamboats@yahoogroups.com, "David Halfpenny"
          <dh1@...> wrote:
          >
          > --------------------------------------------------
          > From: "Richard Mundy" <coracles18@...>
          > Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 10:02 PM
          > To: <pop-pop-steamboats@yahoogroups.com>
          > Subject: [pop-pop-steamboats] Re: Peter R Payne and proper boats.
          >
          > > Hi David,
          > > I think the condensing is done in the tube, which creates another
          > > problem. Condensing steam in a tiny tube is a lot quicker than
          doing
          > > it in a big tube.
          > > An interesting aspect of Paynes original patent is using the
          momentum
          > > of the returning water to compress the remaining steam in the
          boiler.
          > > This should raise the boiling point so the steam has more kick to
          it.
          > > If this effect is significant I have no idea.
          > > More important I suspect is to have a forward facing intake and
          > > valves.
          > > Also, what about an output nozzle? you can significantly increase
          the
          > > velocity of water coming out of a hosepipe by sticking your finger
          > > over the end.
          > > This would also increase the pressure in the boiler and give the
          > > whole thing more go?
          > >
          >
          > This is basically a bit of fun in the bathtub. But if Payne missed
          > something big, as well he might, then we aren't going to find it in
          this
          > kind of conversation, entertaining as it is.
          >
          > We are talking about a resonant system involving an air spring of
          unknown
          > size, ever-reversing heat flow, the properties of steam and water
          under
          > rapidly varying pressure, and the movement of a heavy craft at low
          speed
          > under tiny fluctuating loads. There is virtually no experimental
          data, and
          > few if any of our members have either the maths, the mechanics or
          the
          > thermodynamics to discuss any part of it at a theoretical level.
          Despite
          > the simplicity of the device, it is vastly more complicated than,
          say, an
          > ordinary three cylinder compound marine steam engine. It has been
          usefully
          > demonstrated by Payne that when scaled up in a simple manner the
          power
          > required became enormous yet the result remained pathetic.
          >
          > What would be needed to improve on that would be a set of
          experiments in
          > which every part of the apparatus had rapid-acting pressure and
          temperature
          > sensors, backed up an ever more sophisticated non-linear
          computer "model"
          > based on real thermodynamics until the whole process was understood.
          >
          > The exciting thing is that this is actually all within the scope of
          a smart
          > pensioner with modest means.
          >
          > Meanwhile, the complexity is such that the best answer to questions
          about
          > valves and nozzles is still "Try it!" (Please.)
          >
          > David 1/2d
          >
        • David Halfpenny
          ... From: Richard Mundy Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 7:31 PM ... That s the spirit! D
          Message 4 of 29 , Jan 21, 2009
            --------------------------------------------------
            From: "Richard Mundy" <coracles18@...>
            Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 7:31 PM

            > Time to start torturing metal!!
            >
            That's the spirit! D
          • Jean-Yves Renaud
            Dick, your biscuit tin/blow lamp boat moved back and forth (more or less as every pop-pop boat) not because of the suction, but because of the inertia of the
            Message 5 of 29 , Jan 22, 2009
              Dick, your biscuit tin/blow lamp boat moved back and forth (more or
              less as every pop-pop boat) not because of the suction, but because
              of the inertia of the water contained inside the pipes.
              It very easy to demonstrate that the suction is not the cause. On a
              classic pop-pop boat with two pipes, just bend one on port and the
              other one on starboard. Thus, there will be no more thrust (port and
              starboard being equal and opposite). The boat will no longer progress
              forward, but it will go on vibrating back and forth as before.
              If you have a single pipe engine, just bend the outlet vertically
              downward and the result will be the same.
              Jean-Yves



              --- In pop-pop-steamboats@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Mundy"
              <coracles18@...> wrote:
              >
              > Hi Jean-Yves,
              > you keep knocking down my skittles:-).
              > Seriously, I value your input hugely. Apart from a few experiments
              > perhaps 10 years ago, I am coming at this subject from a 'what if'
              > angle. I remember my biscuit tin/blow lamp boat moved forwards then
              a
              > little back per cycle. So there is a slight reverse pull on the
              > intake. I suspect tho that that the valves unless very carefully
              > designed would further reduce efficiency and as you suggest make
              the
              > forward facing inlet pointless.
              >
              > On the subject of nozzles, I have no experience, I just wondered if
              > it had been tried.
              >
              > Conventional boilers work at high pressure so the steam can hold
              more
              > energy. In a pop pop the boiler is, via the water, open to the
              > atmosphere. effectively like a kettle, and the steam produced is
              very
              > rapidly condensed by contact with the water and the unlagged exit
              > tube. All this accounts for at least some of the inefficiency of
              the
              > pop pop, hence throttling the output to up the pressure and speed
              up
              > the output flow. But will it still work? If it actually reduces
              > efficiency, why?
              >
              > Dick
              >
              >
              > --- In pop-pop-steamboats@yahoogroups.com, "Jean-Yves Renaud"
              > <boite.de.j-y@> wrote:
              > >
              > > Hi Dick,
              > > I would like to comment 2 topics of your last post: facing intake
              > and
              > > nozzle.
              > > 1°) Facing intake.
              > > Everybody thinks at the beginning that using a facing intake (and
              > > valves) could improve the performance of pop-pop propulsion. Even
              > > Peter Payne thought that. But facing intake is useless, or more
              > > exactly so inefficient that it becomes useless.
              > > • By math demo it can be proven that the effect of such a
              > > modification is negligible.
              > > • For those who dislike math, there is an easy way to check
              > > that sucking is far less efficient than blowing. Try to blow a
              > candle
              > > by sucking air!
              > > • In addition, to prove this inefficiency, 2 years ago I built
              > > a small boat with an electric pump to show that sucking water on
              > the
              > > bow has a negligible impact; though a jet backward propels. The
              > > pulling force (when sucking) was roughly 20 millions times weaker
              > > than the pushing one.
              > > 2°) Nozzle.
              > > The thrust of a waterjet evolving with the square of the velocity
              > of
              > > the water that is expelled it seems evident that a nozzle could
              > > improve the performance. However, on a pop-pop engine a nozzle
              acts
              > > also on the frequency, stroke volume…and this is detrimental. We
              > > don't know enough to give precise figures, but it seems that the
              > best
              > > nozzle has a diameter reduced by only 5 to 10%. On this forum
              Daryl
              > > is very likely the one who has got the best practical knowledge
              on
              > > this topic. Most of his engines are provided with nozzles and his
              > > engines are among the best ones if not the best.
              > > Jean-Yves
              > >
              > >
              > > --- In pop-pop-steamboats@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Mundy"
              > > <coracles18@> wrote:
              > > >
              > > > Hi David,
              > > > I think the condensing is done in the tube, which creates
              another
              > > > problem. Condensing steam in a tiny tube is a lot quicker than
              > > doing
              > > > it in a big tube.
              > > > An interesting aspect of Paynes original patent is using the
              > > momentum
              > > > of the returning water to compress the remaining steam in the
              > > boiler.
              > > > This should raise the boiling point so the steam has more kick
              to
              > > it.
              > > > If this effect is significant I have no idea.
              > > > More important I suspect is to have a forward facing intake and
              > > > valves.
              > > > Also, what about an output nozzle? you can significantly
              increase
              > > the
              > > > velocity of water coming out of a hosepipe by sticking your
              > finger
              > > > over the end.
              > > > This would also increase the pressure in the boiler and give
              the
              > > > whole thing more go?
              > > >
              > > > Dick
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > > --- In pop-pop-steamboats@yahoogroups.com, "David Halfpenny"
              > > > <dh1@> wrote:
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > > > --------------------------------------------------
              > > > > From: "Richard Mundy" <coracles18@>
              > > > > Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 7:44 PM
              > > > >
              > > > > > As the engines grow bigger there is a need to create a lot
              of
              > > > steam a
              > > > > > lot faster.
              > > > >
              > > > > AND then condense a tube-full of it in a similar time, in the
              > > very
              > > > boiler
              > > > > you have just heated it in!
              > > > >
              > > > > That is exactly the snag that Newcomen had - though with much
              > > less
              > > > thermal
              > > > > capacity to heat and cool each pulse.
              > > > >
              > > > > David 1/2d
              > > > >
              > > >
              > >
              >
            • Richard Mundy
              Hi Jean-Yves, Yet another thing to think about. I had thought about momentum of the water column, but not its inertia. Dick ... and ... progress ...
              Message 6 of 29 , Jan 23, 2009
                Hi Jean-Yves,

                Yet another thing to think about. I had thought about momentum of the
                water column, but not its inertia.

                Dick



                --- In pop-pop-steamboats@yahoogroups.com, "Jean-Yves Renaud"
                <boite.de.j-y@...> wrote:
                >
                > Dick, your biscuit tin/blow lamp boat moved back and forth (more or
                > less as every pop-pop boat) not because of the suction, but because
                > of the inertia of the water contained inside the pipes.
                > It very easy to demonstrate that the suction is not the cause. On a
                > classic pop-pop boat with two pipes, just bend one on port and the
                > other one on starboard. Thus, there will be no more thrust (port
                and
                > starboard being equal and opposite). The boat will no longer
                progress
                > forward, but it will go on vibrating back and forth as before.
                > If you have a single pipe engine, just bend the outlet vertically
                > downward and the result will be the same.
                > Jean-Yves
                >
                >
                >
                > --- In pop-pop-steamboats@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Mundy"
                > <coracles18@> wrote:
                > >
                > > Hi Jean-Yves,
                > > you keep knocking down my skittles:-).
                > > Seriously, I value your input hugely. Apart from a few
                experiments
                > > perhaps 10 years ago, I am coming at this subject from a 'what
                if'
                > > angle. I remember my biscuit tin/blow lamp boat moved forwards
                then
                > a
                > > little back per cycle. So there is a slight reverse pull on the
                > > intake. I suspect tho that that the valves unless very carefully
                > > designed would further reduce efficiency and as you suggest make
                > the
                > > forward facing inlet pointless.
                > >
                > > On the subject of nozzles, I have no experience, I just wondered
                if
                > > it had been tried.
                > >
                > > Conventional boilers work at high pressure so the steam can hold
                > more
                > > energy. In a pop pop the boiler is, via the water, open to the
                > > atmosphere. effectively like a kettle, and the steam produced is
                > very
                > > rapidly condensed by contact with the water and the unlagged exit
                > > tube. All this accounts for at least some of the inefficiency of
                > the
                > > pop pop, hence throttling the output to up the pressure and speed
                > up
                > > the output flow. But will it still work? If it actually reduces
                > > efficiency, why?
                > >
                > > Dick
                > >
                > >
                > > --- In pop-pop-steamboats@yahoogroups.com, "Jean-Yves Renaud"
                > > <boite.de.j-y@> wrote:
                > > >
                > > > Hi Dick,
                > > > I would like to comment 2 topics of your last post: facing
                intake
                > > and
                > > > nozzle.
                > > > 1°) Facing intake.
                > > > Everybody thinks at the beginning that using a facing intake
                (and
                > > > valves) could improve the performance of pop-pop propulsion.
                Even
                > > > Peter Payne thought that. But facing intake is useless, or more
                > > > exactly so inefficient that it becomes useless.
                > > > • By math demo it can be proven that the effect of such a
                > > > modification is negligible.
                > > > • For those who dislike math, there is an easy way to check
                > > > that sucking is far less efficient than blowing. Try to blow a
                > > candle
                > > > by sucking air!
                > > > • In addition, to prove this inefficiency, 2 years ago I built
                > > > a small boat with an electric pump to show that sucking water
                on
                > > the
                > > > bow has a negligible impact; though a jet backward propels. The
                > > > pulling force (when sucking) was roughly 20 millions times
                weaker
                > > > than the pushing one.
                > > > 2°) Nozzle.
                > > > The thrust of a waterjet evolving with the square of the
                velocity
                > > of
                > > > the water that is expelled it seems evident that a nozzle could
                > > > improve the performance. However, on a pop-pop engine a nozzle
                > acts
                > > > also on the frequency, stroke volume…and this is detrimental.
                We
                > > > don't know enough to give precise figures, but it seems that
                the
                > > best
                > > > nozzle has a diameter reduced by only 5 to 10%. On this forum
                > Daryl
                > > > is very likely the one who has got the best practical knowledge
                > on
                > > > this topic. Most of his engines are provided with nozzles and
                his
                > > > engines are among the best ones if not the best.
                > > > Jean-Yves
                > > >
                > > >
                > > > --- In pop-pop-steamboats@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Mundy"
                > > > <coracles18@> wrote:
                > > > >
                > > > > Hi David,
                > > > > I think the condensing is done in the tube, which creates
                > another
                > > > > problem. Condensing steam in a tiny tube is a lot quicker
                than
                > > > doing
                > > > > it in a big tube.
                > > > > An interesting aspect of Paynes original patent is using the
                > > > momentum
                > > > > of the returning water to compress the remaining steam in the
                > > > boiler.
                > > > > This should raise the boiling point so the steam has more
                kick
                > to
                > > > it.
                > > > > If this effect is significant I have no idea.
                > > > > More important I suspect is to have a forward facing intake
                and
                > > > > valves.
                > > > > Also, what about an output nozzle? you can significantly
                > increase
                > > > the
                > > > > velocity of water coming out of a hosepipe by sticking your
                > > finger
                > > > > over the end.
                > > > > This would also increase the pressure in the boiler and give
                > the
                > > > > whole thing more go?
                > > > >
                > > > > Dick
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > > --- In pop-pop-steamboats@yahoogroups.com, "David Halfpenny"
                > > > > <dh1@> wrote:
                > > > > >
                > > > > >
                > > > > >
                > > > > > --------------------------------------------------
                > > > > > From: "Richard Mundy" <coracles18@>
                > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 7:44 PM
                > > > > >
                > > > > > > As the engines grow bigger there is a need to create a
                lot
                > of
                > > > > steam a
                > > > > > > lot faster.
                > > > > >
                > > > > > AND then condense a tube-full of it in a similar time, in
                the
                > > > very
                > > > > boiler
                > > > > > you have just heated it in!
                > > > > >
                > > > > > That is exactly the snag that Newcomen had - though with
                much
                > > > less
                > > > > thermal
                > > > > > capacity to heat and cool each pulse.
                > > > > >
                > > > > > David 1/2d
                > > > > >
                > > > >
                > > >
                > >
                >
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.