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

WARNING!!!

Expand Messages
  • Frank McNeill
    Hi All, Anybody who has GM or Ford stock should go to the links section for a link titled A New Kind of Car Engine. Old Frank
    Message 1 of 14 , Jun 30, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi All,

      Anybody who has GM or Ford stock should go to the links section for a link titled "A New Kind of Car Engine."

      Old Frank
    • mr.wombosi
      Believe me, this sort of idea crops up every now and again but is never adopted by mainstream manufacturers. Despite obvious reluctance to leave 100yr+ old
      Message 2 of 14 , Jun 30, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        Believe me, this sort of idea crops up every now and again but is never adopted by mainstream manufacturers. Despite obvious reluctance to leave 100yr+ old piston engine technology behind, this may say something about the practicality of such a design.

        If the designer can prove it actually works, fair play to him. I would love to see an engine with one moving part :)

        Dave.

        --- In pop-pop-steamboats@yahoogroups.com, "Frank McNeill" <frankmcneilll@...> wrote:
        >
        > Hi All,
        >
        > Anybody who has GM or Ford stock should go to the links section for a link titled "A New Kind of Car Engine."
        >
        > Old Frank
        >
      • Frank McNeill
        Hi Dave, Some developments are made too early when there isn t an apparent need for them, and some are made too late to compete with something almost as good,
        Message 3 of 14 , Jun 30, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi Dave,

          Some developments are made too early when there isn't an apparent need for them, and some are made too late to compete with something almost as good, that is already being manufactured and marketed.
          This one was made at just about the right time, when the need for hybrid gas-electric autos is more apparent than it was a few years ago. As an engine, this thing would require a powerful electric motor to rev it up to the speed required for shock-wave generation. As part of a gas-electric hybrid drive, it would act as a gasoline-powered generator that could kick in when the hybrid gas/electric system needed help. I can see it as something that might be used to extend the range of electric bikes and scooters, that would be more popular if they could go farther without being plugged in to charge their batteries.

          Old Frank

          --- In pop-pop-steamboats@yahoogroups.com, "mr.wombosi" <mr.wombosi@...> wrote:
          >
          > Believe me, this sort of idea crops up every now and again but is never adopted by mainstream manufacturers. Despite obvious reluctance to leave 100yr+ old piston engine technology behind, this may say something about the practicality of such a design.
          >
          > If the designer can prove it actually works, fair play to him. I would love to see an engine with one moving part :)
          >
          > Dave.
          >
          > --- In pop-pop-steamboats@yahoogroups.com, "Frank McNeill" <frankmcneilll@> wrote:
          > >
          > > Hi All,
          > >
          > > Anybody who has GM or Ford stock should go to the links section for a link titled "A New Kind of Car Engine."
          > >
          > > Old Frank
          > >
          >
        • Donald Qualls
          ... Based on what I recall of my thermodynamics courses in college (most of thirty years ago), I have to say someone s screwed up a calculation somewhere
          Message 4 of 14 , Jun 30, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            Frank McNeill wrote:
            > Hi All,
            >
            > Anybody who has GM or Ford stock should go to the links section for a
            > link titled "A New Kind of Car Engine."
            >

            Based on what I recall of my thermodynamics courses in college (most of
            thirty years ago), I have to say someone's screwed up a calculation
            somewhere (whether by accident or by design). The Carnot efficiency of
            a gasoline engine (based on the combustion temperature of gasoline in
            air) cannot possibly reach the 65% figure that article attributes to
            this new engine -- failing some method to get gasoline to about double
            its absolute combustion temperature (and keep from melting or blowing up
            the engine), that engine is as likely to reach the touted efficiency as
            an 18th century perpetual motion machine is to put the electric
            companies out of business.

            This is not to say it won't run -- but I'd be very surprised if it were
            to beat the modern gasoline automotive engine by more than a few
            percent, perhaps increasing overall efficiency from 15% to as much as
            20% (which would still be a breakthrough of epic proportion). As is,
            however, the article sounds to me more like a hoax intended to sell a
            bunch of worthless stock than anything to be taken seriously by the
            automotive world.

            --
            If, through hard work and perseverance, you finally get what you want,
            it's probably a sign you weren't dreaming big enough.

            Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer http://silent1.home.netcom.com

            Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth
            and don't expect them to be perfect.
          • David Rehkopf
            What dose this have to do with this group?? ... From: Donald Qualls Subject: Re: [pop-pop-steamboats] WARNING!!! To:
            Message 5 of 14 , Jun 30, 2011
            • 0 Attachment
              What dose this have to do with this group??

              --- On Thu, 6/30/11, Donald Qualls <silent1@...> wrote:

              From: Donald Qualls <silent1@...>
              Subject: Re: [pop-pop-steamboats] WARNING!!!
              To: pop-pop-steamboats@yahoogroups.com
              Date: Thursday, June 30, 2011, 6:44 PM

               

              Frank McNeill wrote:
              > Hi All,
              >
              > Anybody who has GM or Ford stock should go to the links section for a
              > link titled "A New Kind of Car Engine."
              >

              Based on what I recall of my thermodynamics courses in college (most of
              thirty years ago), I have to say someone's screwed up a calculation
              somewhere (whether by accident or by design). The Carnot efficiency of
              a gasoline engine (based on the combustion temperature of gasoline in
              air) cannot possibly reach the 65% figure that article attributes to
              this new engine -- failing some method to get gasoline to about double
              its absolute combustion temperature (and keep from melting or blowing up
              the engine), that engine is as likely to reach the touted efficiency as
              an 18th century perpetual motion machine is to put the electric
              companies out of business.

              This is not to say it won't run -- but I'd be very surprised if it were
              to beat the modern gasoline automotive engine by more than a few
              percent, perhaps increasing overall efficiency from 15% to as much as
              20% (which would still be a breakthrough of epic proportion). As is,
              however, the article sounds to me more like a hoax intended to sell a
              bunch of worthless stock than anything to be taken seriously by the
              automotive world.

              --
              If, through hard work and perseverance, you finally get what you want,
              it's probably a sign you weren't dreaming big enough.

              Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer http://silent1.home.netcom.com

              Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth
              and don't expect them to be perfect.

            • Frank McNeill
              Hi Donald, The claim was that The Wave Disk Generator uses 60 percent of its fuel for propulsion; standard car engines use just 15 percent. As a result, the
              Message 6 of 14 , Jul 1, 2011
              • 0 Attachment
                Hi Donald,

                The claim was that "The Wave Disk Generator uses 60 percent of its fuel for propulsion; standard car engines use just 15 percent. As a result, the generator is 3.5 times more fuel efficient than typical combustion engines." If true, it might be because the shock waves combine the functions of carburetors and spark plugs by converting a liquid fuel into vapor and almost instantaneously igniting it.

                Frank



                --- In pop-pop-steamboats@yahoogroups.com, Donald Qualls <silent1@...> wrote:
                >
                > Frank McNeill wrote:
                > > Hi All,
                > >
                > > Anybody who has GM or Ford stock should go to the links section for a
                > > link titled "A New Kind of Car Engine."
                > >
                >
                > Based on what I recall of my thermodynamics courses in college (most of
                > thirty years ago), I have to say someone's screwed up a calculation
                > somewhere (whether by accident or by design). The Carnot efficiency of
                > a gasoline engine (based on the combustion temperature of gasoline in
                > air) cannot possibly reach the 65% figure that article attributes to
                > this new engine -- failing some method to get gasoline to about double
                > its absolute combustion temperature (and keep from melting or blowing up
                > the engine), that engine is as likely to reach the touted efficiency as
                > an 18th century perpetual motion machine is to put the electric
                > companies out of business.
                >
                > This is not to say it won't run -- but I'd be very surprised if it were
                > to beat the modern gasoline automotive engine by more than a few
                > percent, perhaps increasing overall efficiency from 15% to as much as
                > 20% (which would still be a breakthrough of epic proportion). As is,
                > however, the article sounds to me more like a hoax intended to sell a
                > bunch of worthless stock than anything to be taken seriously by the
                > automotive world.
                >
                > --
                > If, through hard work and perseverance, you finally get what you want,
                > it's probably a sign you weren't dreaming big enough.
                >
                > Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer http://silent1.home.netcom.com
                >
                > Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth
                > and don't expect them to be perfect.
                >
              • David Halfpenny (y)
                ... From: Frank McNeill Sent: Friday, July 01, 2011 12:21 PM To: Subject: [pop-pop-steamboats]
                Message 7 of 14 , Jul 1, 2011
                • 0 Attachment
                  --------------------------------------------------
                  From: "Frank McNeill" <frankmcneilll@...>
                  Sent: Friday, July 01, 2011 12:21 PM
                  To: <pop-pop-steamboats@yahoogroups.com>
                  Subject: [pop-pop-steamboats] Re: WARNING!!!

                  > Hi Donald,
                  >
                  > The claim was that "The Wave Disk Generator uses 60 percent of its fuel
                  > for propulsion; standard car engines use just 15 percent. As a result,
                  > the generator is 3.5 times more fuel efficient than typical combustion
                  > engines." If true, it might be because the shock waves combine the
                  > functions of carburetors and spark plugs by converting a liquid fuel into
                  > vapor and almost instantaneously igniting it.
                  >
                  > Frank

                  Frank,

                  One can see that it might have very low mechanical losses, but to convert
                  60% of the gasoline energy into mechanical work would be such an incredible
                  feat of high-temperature engineering that Donald is quite right to question
                  what exactly the press releases mean.

                  A Heat Engine works by taking in heat at a high temperature, turning part
                  of that heat into Work, and getting rid of "waste" heat at a low
                  temperature. There is no avoiding this "waste": it is how the engine works.
                  It's like the "waste" water from a hydro turbine: if you could stop it
                  escaping, the turbine would stop altogether. In just the same way if you
                  could stop a heat engine from discharging heat, then it would stop going
                  round.

                  So however clever the workings of the engine, there is no escaping the
                  "waste" heat. That sets an upper limit to the efficiency of ANY Heat
                  Engine. That limit is the temperature difference over which the Working
                  Fluid expands, divided by the Absolute temperature at its hottest. And of
                  course all the losses in the engine subtract from the theoretical figure

                  The ONLY ways to increase this theoretical maximum are to increase the top
                  temperature inside the cylinder or reduce the exhaust temperature.
                  The really clever thing about the internal combustion piston engine is that
                  a cylinder with quite a low melting point can hold a bubble of ignited
                  gas/air at a very high temperature because it is only for an instant and is
                  shrouded in cool air for that instant. Even so an engine made of steel and
                  running around the countryside has a THEORETICAL efficiency of less than
                  40%, and an overall efficiency (including losses from friction and noise
                  and cooling) of less than 20%.

                  If the new engine is to have a theoretical efficiency greater than 40% it
                  will have to find a different way to protect its mechanical parts from the
                  continuous firestorm inside, perhaps by using cunning airflows or by using
                  advanced materials as used in gas turbines for the same reasons. I can
                  imagine that when properly engineered and effectively cooled it won't be
                  anything like as small and light as the dummy in the professor's hand. Not
                  only that it will have to deal with worse emissions problems because the
                  higher the temperature of the gas/air flame the more unpleasant the exhaust
                  chemistry becomes.

                  There are other figures that seem difficult to take seriously. I know
                  Americans like heavy gasoline engines, but I'm impressed that the prof.
                  talks about 1 000lb on an SUV or utility vehicle. Remember he's going to
                  need to add electric motors, a generator and a massive battery as well as
                  his his little 25kW (33HP) engine and its cooling system. My own SUV weighs
                  3 300lb, and I while I don't know for sure, I doubt very much that the 70kW
                  (96HP) gasoline engine weighs half of that.

                  Here's another press release which is clearer in some ways but not in
                  others:
                  http://tinyurl.com/3vflpjx

                  I'm looking forward to seeing what happens next.


                  It is interesting that the new engine uses shock waves to replace moving
                  parts. A pop-pop does that too, though in our case they are not fast enough
                  to call 'shock'. Maybe a rotary pop-pop is on the cards? - though its
                  efficiency would probably be even more dismal than our boats.

                  David 1/2d
                • David Halfpenny (y)
                  From: David Rehkopf Sent: Friday, July 01, 2011 3:20 AM To: pop-pop-steamboats@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [pop-pop-steamboats] WARNING!!! ... It s about an
                  Message 8 of 14 , Jul 1, 2011
                  • 0 Attachment
                    From: David Rehkopf
                    Sent: Friday, July 01, 2011 3:20 AM
                    To: pop-pop-steamboats@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: Re: [pop-pop-steamboats] WARNING!!!

                    > What does this have to do with this group??

                    It's about an engine that works on a related principle to the pop-pop,
                    David.

                    It uses standing waves in the Working Fluid to replace the complexity of
                    mechanical valves.

                    Besides, the home page says (in five languages):

                    "Description
                    This is the any topic, no rules and not much discussion group where the
                    development of pop-pop steamboats and engines is occasionally mentioned."

                    David 1/2d
                  • Frank McNeill
                    Hi David and David, This is the any topic, no rules and not much discussion group where the development of pop-pop steamboats and engines is occasionally
                    Message 9 of 14 , Jul 1, 2011
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Hi David and David,

                      "This is the any topic, no rules and not much discussion group where the development of pop-pop steamboats and engines is occasionally mentioned."
                      Copied from our group's home page.

                      Old Frank

                      --- In pop-pop-steamboats@yahoogroups.com, "David Halfpenny \(y\)" <david.halfpenny@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > From: David Rehkopf
                      > Sent: Friday, July 01, 2011 3:20 AM
                      > To: pop-pop-steamboats@yahoogroups.com
                      > Subject: Re: [pop-pop-steamboats] WARNING!!!
                      >
                      > > What does this have to do with this group??
                      >
                      > It's about an engine that works on a related principle to the pop-pop,
                      > David.
                      >
                      > It uses standing waves in the Working Fluid to replace the complexity of
                      > mechanical valves.
                      >
                      > Besides, the home page says (in five languages):
                      >
                      > "Description
                      > This is the any topic, no rules and not much discussion group where the
                      > development of pop-pop steamboats and engines is occasionally mentioned."
                      >
                      > David 1/2d
                      >
                    • papypp44
                      I worked for 15 years in the design office of one of the biggest engine manufacturers and then I used to work with big engines from this builder and from the
                      Message 10 of 14 , Jul 1, 2011
                      • 0 Attachment
                        I worked for 15 years in the design office of one of the biggest engine manufacturers and then I used to work with big engines from this builder and from the competitors. When I say big engines, I mean between 1000 and 50,000HP. Several times I read papers or I met people who thought they have invented a revolutionary engine. But the laws a physics and thermodynamics cannot be transgressed!!!

                        When a customer orders an engine there are generally penalties in case of consumption higher than the contractual one. Penalties could be enormous. Sometimes several millions of Euros or Dollars. Therefore, all the engine designers and manufacturers spend money to try to improve the efficiency. They explored many ways and the fact is that in 30 years the efficiency has been improved by only 2 or 3%, and this is due mainly to a higher pressure in the combustion chamber (175-180 bars in a diesel engine). Higher temperatures (which could also improve the efficiency) are not possible for mechanical reasons and because that would involve more pollution. (NOx).
                        I wrote several pages on this matter, but it is in French and I have no time to translate. If somebody reads French I can send a file.

                        --- In pop-pop-steamboats@yahoogroups.com, David Rehkopf <drehkopf2000@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > What dose this have to do with this group??
                        >
                        > --- On Thu, 6/30/11, Donald Qualls <silent1@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > From: Donald Qualls <silent1@...>
                        > Subject: Re: [pop-pop-steamboats] WARNING!!!
                        > To: pop-pop-steamboats@yahoogroups.com
                        > Date: Thursday, June 30, 2011, 6:44 PM
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >  
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > Frank McNeill wrote:
                        >
                        > > Hi All,
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > > Anybody who has GM or Ford stock should go to the links section for a
                        >
                        > > link titled "A New Kind of Car Engine."
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > Based on what I recall of my thermodynamics courses in college (most of
                        >
                        > thirty years ago), I have to say someone's screwed up a calculation
                        >
                        > somewhere (whether by accident or by design). The Carnot efficiency of
                        >
                        > a gasoline engine (based on the combustion temperature of gasoline in
                        >
                        > air) cannot possibly reach the 65% figure that article attributes to
                        >
                        > this new engine -- failing some method to get gasoline to about double
                        >
                        > its absolute combustion temperature (and keep from melting or blowing up
                        >
                        > the engine), that engine is as likely to reach the touted efficiency as
                        >
                        > an 18th century perpetual motion machine is to put the electric
                        >
                        > companies out of business.
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > This is not to say it won't run -- but I'd be very surprised if it were
                        >
                        > to beat the modern gasoline automotive engine by more than a few
                        >
                        > percent, perhaps increasing overall efficiency from 15% to as much as
                        >
                        > 20% (which would still be a breakthrough of epic proportion). As is,
                        >
                        > however, the article sounds to me more like a hoax intended to sell a
                        >
                        > bunch of worthless stock than anything to be taken seriously by the
                        >
                        > automotive world.
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > --
                        >
                        > If, through hard work and perseverance, you finally get what you want,
                        >
                        > it's probably a sign you weren't dreaming big enough.
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer http://silent1.home.netcom.com
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth
                        >
                        > and don't expect them to be perfect.
                        >
                      • John Clonts
                        What does a 50,000 HP engine look like? What is an example of application? (Steamship?) Thanks! John ... ...
                        Message 11 of 14 , Jul 1, 2011
                        • 0 Attachment
                          What does a 50,000 HP engine look like?  What is an example of application?  (Steamship?)

                          Thanks!
                          John

                          On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 3:21 PM, papypp44 <papypp44@...> wrote:
                          I worked for 15 years in the design office of one of the biggest engine manufacturers and then I used to work with big engines from this builder and from the competitors. When I say big engines, I mean between 1000 and 50,000HP. Several times I read papers or I
                          ...
                        • Jean-Yves Renaud
                          The biggest diesel engine I know (but I ve not seen it) is the Wärtsilä-Sulzer RTA96. More than 100,000hp in the 14 cylinder version. 2300 tons. Length 27m
                          Message 12 of 14 , Jul 1, 2011
                          • 0 Attachment
                            The biggest diesel engine I know (but I've not seen it) is the Wärtsilä-Sulzer RTA96. More than 100,000hp in the 14 cylinder version. 2300 tons. Length 27m (89ft). Height 13.5m (44ft).
                            Big engines are used maily for ship propulsion and as prime mover for electrical power plants.
                            The efficiency of big diesel engines is around 50%.

                            The first engine I saw when I entered in this business (in 1971) was a 12 cylinders in line from Burmeister & Wein (today MAN). Bore: 840mm. Stroke: approx 3m. I was impressed by the size and by some other data such as for instance its idling speed: 17rpm.

                            Steamships are very rare today because of the poor efficiency of a steam turbine: approx 30%. However, steam turbines are still used to recover power from the exhaust gas of diesel engines or gas turbines, and thus improving the global efficiency.

                            Le 01/07/2011 22:58, John Clonts a écrit :
                             

                            What does a 50,000 HP engine look like?  What is an example of application?  (Steamship?)

                            Thanks!
                            John

                            On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 3:21 PM, papypp44 <papypp44@...> wrote:
                            I worked for 15 years in the design office of one of the biggest engine manufacturers and then I used to work with big engines from this builder and from the competitors. When I say big engines, I mean between 1000 and 50,000HP. Several times I read papers or I
                            ...

                          • papypp44
                            I ve just seen on internet that there is a strongest engine. It is from MAN-B&W. 115,000hp.
                            Message 13 of 14 , Jul 1, 2011
                            • 0 Attachment
                              I've just seen on internet that there is a strongest engine. It is from MAN-B&W. 115,000hp.

                              --- In pop-pop-steamboats@yahoogroups.com, Jean-Yves Renaud <boite.de.j-y@...> wrote:
                              >
                              > The biggest diesel engine I know (but I've not seen it) is the
                              > Wärtsilä-Sulzer RTA96. More than 100,000hp in the 14 cylinder version.
                              > 2300 tons. Length 27m (89ft). Height 13.5m (44ft).
                              > Big engines are used maily for ship propulsion and as prime mover for
                              > electrical power plants.
                              > The efficiency of big diesel engines is around 50%.
                              >
                              > The first engine I saw when I entered in this business (in 1971) was a
                              > 12 cylinders in line from Burmeister & Wein (today MAN). Bore: 840mm.
                              > Stroke: approx 3m. I was impressed by the size and by some other data
                              > such as for instance its idling speed: 17rpm.
                              >
                              > Steamships are very rare today because of the poor efficiency of a steam
                              > turbine: approx 30%. However, steam turbines are still used to recover
                              > power from the exhaust gas of diesel engines or gas turbines, and thus
                              > improving the global efficiency.
                              >
                              > Le 01/07/2011 22:58, John Clonts a écrit :
                              > >
                              > > What does a 50,000 HP engine look like? What is an example of
                              > > application? (Steamship?)
                              > >
                              > > Thanks!
                              > > John
                              > >
                              > > On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 3:21 PM, papypp44 <papypp44@...
                              > > <mailto:papypp44@...>> wrote:
                              > >
                              > > I worked for 15 years in the design office of one of the biggest
                              > > engine manufacturers and then I used to work with big engines from
                              > > this builder and from the competitors. When I say big engines, I
                              > > mean between 1000 and 50,000HP. Several times I read papers or I
                              > >
                              > > ...
                              > >
                              >
                            • zoomkat
                              ... For those that like big/old engines, youtube can totally use up a weekend night! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D24EMlA8Bzc
                              Message 14 of 14 , Jul 2, 2011
                              • 0 Attachment
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.