The vibrating device was a mechanical oscillator. (Of which there is a
picture attached.) I have been trying to spark a discussion on this
particular device. There are several reasons this device would be more
efficient than a generator . It is my "guess" that the oscillating
generator was used to (partially) supply Tesla's magnifying transmitter.
   The mechanical oscillator ran off liquid oxygen and moved four sets of
coils through a magnetic field of extremely high qauss. It repeated this
operation anywhere from "80 times per second" "to many hundreds of
times"(IRW of Nikola Tesla by Martin)
   The interesting fact about this generator is the size coil it can move
with little effort. Tesla used an air spring to capture the mechanical
force of the piston and return it to its original position. No matter
what the upper limits of the coils weight, the air spring could be sized
to return it to very close to its origional position. (Similar to the
way a ball bounces to almost the same height when dropped. )
   Tesla was not content just to drop the ball to the ground, he slammed
it down electromagnetically. This caused the ball (or in his case
piston) to bounce off the air spring and back past its original position
by some magnitude. Fortunately this tremendous energy was stopped by the
second air spring located on the other end. Similar to the Tesla coil
the energy increased with each bounce until the maximum level the
machine could tolerate was reached.
  The magnetic field also increased as the movement of the coil
increased. Some of the output of the coils was diverted into the
stationary thin sheet iron core electromagnet. Thus as the coil moved
faster and faster the electromagnetic field became stronger, creating
more lines of gauss. Since the movement of the piston was
electromagnetically assisted its speed was ever increaseing. This
combined mechanical and electrical energy drove the coils at higher and
higer speed through an ever increaseing magnetic field.
    Resistance in the wiring would be lowered by the liquid oxygen. The
iron core electromagnets would run cooler also.


> "Dooley, Jim" wrote:
>
> Rebecca,
>
> There is mention of some sort of vibrating device, which I assume to
> operate at fairly high frequency, mentioned as an anecdote in Margaret
> Cheney's biography of Tesla, Man Out of Time.  It is in the first few
> pages of the text.  There may be more in that book, but I can't
> remember; it's been a long time since I read it.  The device had
> strange laxative properties to it.  Perhaps a mechanical equivalent to
> Ex-Lax.  A person would stand on the platform which would vibrate.
> Within a short time they would have to run for the bathroom.  One of
> Tesla's friends who tried it out was none other than Mark Twain.
> Whether true or an embellishment, I don't know.  Either way, it made
> for interesting reading.
>
> There are mentions in this book of other devices such as medical
> diathermy, a kind of prototype microwave heating device from what I
> can tell.  Also mentioned are Tesla pads, a kind of heating pad and
> other high frequency coil-type devices which seem to have the been the
> forerunners of modern radiation treatments for cancers and such.
>
> Jim Dooley
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rebecca Buchbinder [mailto:r_buchbinder@...]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 1999 8:18 PM
> To: usa-tesla@onelist.com
> Subject: [usa-tesla] Tesla Coils
>
> From: Rebecca Buchbinder <r_buchbinder@...>
>
> >growing plants better,
> >medical devices
> >Tesla's more esoteric claims
>
> How can I go about getting more information on these topics,
> especially
> the medical devices?
>
> ___________________________________________________________________
> Get the Internet just the way you want it.
> Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
> Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.
>
> --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor
> ----------------------------
>
> ONElist members: don't miss out on the latest news at ONElist
> Join our community member news update at
> <a href=" http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/newsletter5 ">Click Here</a>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

The attached diagram contains a suggestion for a method of direct
combustion of H and O mix. The diagram is open to debate and suggestion.
This particular design has never been tried. If someone does intend to
try to construct this model (which may just explode) I would suggest
that less is more when it comes to H and O combustion.
Paul.

I had the 316 stainless steel and the 304 stainless steel laser cut
into rotor sections. I thought I might save money by drilling the holes
for the thru bolts myself.Carbon bits last about 3 holes. The titanimum
bits last about 15 to 20 holes. I drilled on one rotor section for one
hour and still did not finish. The holes had numerous burrs and will
have to be sanded. I estimate it would take about 2 hours per rotor
section and 30 min for each divider. This does not take into account
cutting washers  thru bolts.
   I am going to take the rotor sections back to the laser cutter to have
the holes burned...

Paul Eitson wrote:
>
>    Attached is a diagram of the boiler I am building for test purposes.
> I will have actual photos one day soon.
>
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  [Image]

Will be happy to discuss my plans. I would recommend the book "Tesla's
Engine" George Wiseman also has a good collection of turbine articles.
21st century books is another good reference source.
    My readings indicate the turbine has one very serious problem:
Vibration. The fan you are describeing should not be as seriously
affected by that particular problem. I think a lot of this problem
results from how the disks are attached to the shaft. Keys are (in my
opinion) less than satisfactory for this purpose. Cutting grooves in the
shaft to install keys weakens the shaft. It is expensive to get the
grooves cut. Keys are prone to work loose especially if there is
vibration in the rotor section (there are several causes for this
vibration so it will be a factor.) Keys transmitt torque unevenly.
   I am useing an attachment procedure called shrink disk. Each pair of
disks (which fit on either side of the rotors) has 8 1/4" bolt holes.
These bolts go through the rotor section to pull the two disks togather.
There is a stainless steel wedge between each shrink disk and the shaft.
Tighting the bolts will force the wedge against the shaft uniformly all
the way around the shaft. In may case I am useing a sleeve between the
shaft and rotor section. The wedge forces the sleeve against the shaft
and thus transmitts the energy along the whole length of the sleeve to
the shaft. These disks also have the added benifit of forceing the disks
to be perpendicular to the shaft.

More comments below.

"Larry J. Plato" wrote:
>
> Hi Paul!
>
> My name is Larry Plato, and I work with "The Energy Eggheads", a
> group whose main goal is to collate energy information and research
> and get the technology tested and PUT INTO USE!  I saw your post on
> USA-Tesla and wanted to know if you would be willing to talk to me
> about your plans to build a tesla turbine.  Because of my work, I am
> out of the country and temporarily unable to work on my turbine.
> I copied your email below, and continued on to describe my plans
> for testing the Tesla Turbine.  If you would care to comment, that
> would be nice.  I look forward to hearing from you.  FYI: I am
> familiar with the Tesla Turbine Engine Builders:
>
>   http://www.execpc.com/~teba/index.html teba@...
>
> and intend to contact them as well.
>
> Larry Plato
> Executive Director, Energy Eggheads
> http://www.nnaf.net/~ljp/EnergyEggheads/index.html
>
> > Message: 6
> >    Date: Sun, 05 Sep 1999 23:11:44 -0600
> >    From: Paul Eitson <xyme2@...>
> > Subject: Re: Tesla Motors
> >
> >  If you are talking about a Tesla turbine I am working on one now. I
> > will post details as I go along. The 10 inch diameter turbine produces
> > about 110 hp and is 4 inches wide. Several have been successfully
> > constructed. TEBA (Tesla Engine Builders Association) can provide you
> > with good diagrams and some technical assistance. I am attaching a
> > diagram of some of the basic parts. I do not have a cad program so these
> > drawings are only a representation.
> >
>
> I have never built a tesla turbine, but I think I understand the
> theory pretty well.  I have purchased copies of the three relevant
> patents on Tesla turbines.  1) The fluidic valve, 2) The turbine
> as an prime mover (engine), and the turbine as a means to recover
> energy from a viscous stream (steam, etc) I do not have the patent
> numbers in front of me.  I can provide those for reference to
> anyone interested.  This winter I hope to turn the patents into
> PDF files and post them online.
>
> I am planning on building a small "Tesla Fan" as my first test case.
> In an article I can no longer find :-( a reported describes what sounds like
> the blades of a tesla turbine mounted on a shaft and left un-enclosed
> in space.  The resulting device would suck air into the central holes
> and expel it from the edges of the blades.

The teba manuel describes some blowers that have been constructed in
this manner.
>
> For the benefit of those not familiar with the tesla turbine, it works
> on two modes, as a pump, and as an engine.  Let's start with the tesla fan,
> basically a tesla turbine acting as a pump, for the purpose of pumping air.
> It consists of a motor, and on the shaft of the motor, are attached a number
> of thin disks.
>
>   Each disk has a series of holes (usually three) punched in the
> center.  The holes create the effect of "spokes" in the center.
> This way you can attach the blades to the central shaft (the motor shaft)
> and still have an opening in the center of the blades.
>
> As seen from the edge:
>
>            ^
>            |  Wind
>
>          |||||
>          |||||
> [Motor] -+++++-  <-- airflow
>          |||||
>          |||||
>
>          5 blades
>
> The blades all have a hollow "hub and spoke" type center.
> As the blades spin, air is dragged along the blades by "adhesion"
> and since the blades spin in an arc, centripetal force cause the air
> to be thrown out of the blades.  This creates a vacuum in the center
> of the plates.  Since there are holes in the center of the disks,
> air from the front of the tesla turbine rushes into the center holes.


>
> This is the basic operating mode of a tesla turbine as a pump.
>
> You can improve the efficiency by pre-spinning the air before it hits
> the plates, this reduces the difference in speed between the incoming
> fluid (or air) and the blades.  The easiest way to prespin the air
> is to put a housing around the turbine and creating a single exit point
> and a single inlet point for the air.

Fred Mcgillard on the Turbine list is working on this point. He is
hopeing to eleminate turbulance.


    On the single inlet point
> you put twists in the inlet tube, and the air rushing into the inlet
> is spun by the grooves in the inles tube, and this 'pre spin' matches the
> flow of the incoming air to the motion of the turbine blades.
>
> After I build this, I inted to make a system of washers to experiment with
> how to space the plates based on the type of fluid.

I read a section that indicated rotor size should be considered as well
as driveing fluid. Larger plates require larger spaceing. For a 10 inch
turbine spaceing is as follows. 1/32 steam  1/16 water  1/64 air. If the
plates are 18 inches, 1/32" for air.
>
> It seems like a simple test, but an easy one.  After that, I plan on moving
> to a full blow TT pump, and then I want to start doing comparisons between
> the TT's ability to move air (in cubic foot per minute divided by watts of
> power used) as compared to traditional fans.
>
> After that, it's on to engine building...
>

My own design consists of two rotor section on the same shaft. One rotor
works as an engine that runs on steam. The other rotor runs on vacuum.
Fred is working on a diametrically opposite design. He has two rotor
sections one of which acts as a compressor, the other as an engine. My
design uses one rotor (a pump) to remove air from the engine. His design
uses one rotor to force air into a combustion chamber then into the engine.


My turbine list is TeslaTurbine@onelist. It is not very active but I
post my progress reports there and would invite you to do the same.

Paul

Paul,

The device you are describing is marketed fairly widely as the "Taper-Lock
Bushing" system.  I can no longer remember the manufacturer, as it's been
several years since I last bought one.  You are right in that they do a good
job of evenly transmitting torque, but if memory serves me correctly, I sort
of remember seeing a keyway in the inner bushing also.  Again, it's been
quite a while...

Jim Dooley

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Eitson [mailto:xyme2@...]
Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 1999 12:32 AM
To: Larry J. Plato; Turbine List
Subject: [TeslaTurbine] Re: Tesla Motors


From: Paul Eitson <xyme2@...>

Will be happy to discuss my plans. I would recommend the book "Tesla's
Engine" George Wiseman also has a good collection of turbine articles.
21st century books is another good reference source.
    My readings indicate the turbine has one very serious problem:
Vibration. The fan you are describeing should not be as seriously
affected by that particular problem. I think a lot of this problem
results from how the disks are attached to the shaft. Keys are (in my
opinion) less than satisfactory for this purpose. Cutting grooves in the
shaft to install keys weakens the shaft. It is expensive to get the
grooves cut. Keys are prone to work loose especially if there is
vibration in the rotor section (there are several causes for this
vibration so it will be a factor.) Keys transmitt torque unevenly.
   I am useing an attachment procedure called shrink disk. Each pair of
disks (which fit on either side of the rotors) has 8 1/4" bolt holes.
These bolts go through the rotor section to pull the two disks togather.
There is a stainless steel wedge between each shrink disk and the shaft.
Tighting the bolts will force the wedge against the shaft uniformly all
the way around the shaft. In may case I am useing a sleeve between the
shaft and rotor section. The wedge forces the sleeve against the shaft
and thus transmitts the energy along the whole length of the sleeve to
the shaft. These disks also have the added benifit of forceing the disks
to be perpendicular to the shaft.

More comments below.

"Larry J. Plato" wrote:
>
> Hi Paul!
>
> My name is Larry Plato, and I work with "The Energy Eggheads", a
> group whose main goal is to collate energy information and research
> and get the technology tested and PUT INTO USE!  I saw your post on
> USA-Tesla and wanted to know if you would be willing to talk to me
> about your plans to build a tesla turbine.  Because of my work, I am
> out of the country and temporarily unable to work on my turbine.
> I copied your email below, and continued on to describe my plans
> for testing the Tesla Turbine.  If you would care to comment, that
> would be nice.  I look forward to hearing from you.  FYI: I am
> familiar with the Tesla Turbine Engine Builders:
>
>   http://www.execpc.com/~teba/index.html teba@...
>
> and intend to contact them as well.
>
> Larry Plato
> Executive Director, Energy Eggheads
> http://www.nnaf.net/~ljp/EnergyEggheads/index.html
>
> > Message: 6
> >    Date: Sun, 05 Sep 1999 23:11:44 -0600
> >    From: Paul Eitson <xyme2@...>
> > Subject: Re: Tesla Motors
> >
> >  If you are talking about a Tesla turbine I am working on one now. I
> > will post details as I go along. The 10 inch diameter turbine produces
> > about 110 hp and is 4 inches wide. Several have been successfully
> > constructed. TEBA (Tesla Engine Builders Association) can provide you
> > with good diagrams and some technical assistance. I am attaching a
> > diagram of some of the basic parts. I do not have a cad program so these
> > drawings are only a representation.
> >
>
> I have never built a tesla turbine, but I think I understand the
> theory pretty well.  I have purchased copies of the three relevant
> patents on Tesla turbines.  1) The fluidic valve, 2) The turbine
> as an prime mover (engine), and the turbine as a means to recover
> energy from a viscous stream (steam, etc) I do not have the patent
> numbers in front of me.  I can provide those for reference to
> anyone interested.  This winter I hope to turn the patents into
> PDF files and post them online.
>
> I am planning on building a small "Tesla Fan" as my first test case.
> In an article I can no longer find :-( a reported describes what sounds
like
> the blades of a tesla turbine mounted on a shaft and left un-enclosed
> in space.  The resulting device would suck air into the central holes
> and expel it from the edges of the blades.

The teba manuel describes some blowers that have been constructed in
this manner.
>
> For the benefit of those not familiar with the tesla turbine, it works
> on two modes, as a pump, and as an engine.  Let's start with the tesla
fan,
> basically a tesla turbine acting as a pump, for the purpose of pumping
air.
> It consists of a motor, and on the shaft of the motor, are attached a
number
> of thin disks.
>
>   Each disk has a series of holes (usually three) punched in the
> center.  The holes create the effect of "spokes" in the center.
> This way you can attach the blades to the central shaft (the motor shaft)
> and still have an opening in the center of the blades.
>
> As seen from the edge:
>
>            ^
>            |  Wind
>
>          |||||
>          |||||
> [Motor] -+++++-  <-- airflow
>          |||||
>          |||||
>
>          5 blades
>
> The blades all have a hollow "hub and spoke" type center.
> As the blades spin, air is dragged along the blades by "adhesion"
> and since the blades spin in an arc, centripetal force cause the air
> to be thrown out of the blades.  This creates a vacuum in the center
> of the plates.  Since there are holes in the center of the disks,
> air from the front of the tesla turbine rushes into the center holes.


>
> This is the basic operating mode of a tesla turbine as a pump.
>
> You can improve the efficiency by pre-spinning the air before it hits
> the plates, this reduces the difference in speed between the incoming
> fluid (or air) and the blades.  The easiest way to prespin the air
> is to put a housing around the turbine and creating a single exit point
> and a single inlet point for the air.

Fred Mcgillard on the Turbine list is working on this point. He is
hopeing to eleminate turbulance.


    On the single inlet point
> you put twists in the inlet tube, and the air rushing into the inlet
> is spun by the grooves in the inles tube, and this 'pre spin' matches the
> flow of the incoming air to the motion of the turbine blades.
>
> After I build this, I inted to make a system of washers to experiment with
> how to space the plates based on the type of fluid.

I read a section that indicated rotor size should be considered as well
as driveing fluid. Larger plates require larger spaceing. For a 10 inch
turbine spaceing is as follows. 1/32 steam  1/16 water  1/64 air. If the
plates are 18 inches, 1/32" for air.
>
> It seems like a simple test, but an easy one.  After that, I plan on
moving
> to a full blow TT pump, and then I want to start doing comparisons between
> the TT's ability to move air (in cubic foot per minute divided by watts of
> power used) as compared to traditional fans.
>
> After that, it's on to engine building...
>

My own design consists of two rotor section on the same shaft. One rotor
works as an engine that runs on steam. The other rotor runs on vacuum.
Fred is working on a diametrically opposite design. He has two rotor
sections one of which acts as a compressor, the other as an engine. My
design uses one rotor (a pump) to remove air from the engine. His design
uses one rotor to force air into a combustion chamber then into the engine.


My turbine list is TeslaTurbine@onelist. It is not very active but I
post my progress reports there and would invite you to do the same.

Paul

--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------

ONElist:  your connection to like-minds and kindred spirits.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

I just bought a couple of these things. Apparently they used on heavy
equipment like mining drills and such. What I got for about 150.00
dollars US was 2 pairs of disks, and two pairs of stainless steel rings
with a notch in them. The rings fit tightly around the sleeve and are
tapered with one side being thicker and with a small lip. In the case of
the turbine the lip fits against the thicker end plate. The disk slides
a little more than 1/2 way over the ring without forcing it. When the
bolts are tightened the disk pulls up completely over the ring forcing
it against the sleeve.
   The pair of rings go on the outside of the end plates and on the
inside of the two disks. The bolts which hold the disks together go
through the rotor section  causing the disks to pull up firmly against
the end plates and compress the entire rotor section. I tried to move
the sleeve with a 16 inch pipe wrench and was unable to do so.
   I think these are a relatively new type of the same device you
describe. They depend entirely on the wedge effect. These were provided
by the Orcutt Co.

> "Dooley, Jim" wrote:
>
> Paul,
>
> The device you are describing is marketed fairly widely as the
> "Taper-Lock Bushing" system.  I can no longer remember the
> manufacturer, as it's been several years since I last bought one.  You
> are right in that they do a good job of evenly transmitting torque,
> but if memory serves me correctly, I sort of remember seeing a keyway
> in the inner bushing also.  Again, it's been quite a while...
>
> Jim Dooley
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Eitson [mailto:xyme2@...]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 1999 12:32 AM
> To: Larry J. Plato; Turbine List
> Subject: [TeslaTurbine] Re: Tesla Motors
>
> From: Paul Eitson <xyme2@...>
>
> Will be happy to discuss my plans. I would recommend the book "Tesla's
>
> Engine" George Wiseman also has a good collection of turbine articles.
>
> 21st century books is another good reference source.
>    My readings indicate the turbine has one very serious problem:
> Vibration. The fan you are describeing should not be as seriously
> affected by that particular problem. I think a lot of this problem
> results from how the disks are attached to the shaft. Keys are (in my
> opinion) less than satisfactory for this purpose. Cutting grooves in
> the
> shaft to install keys weakens the shaft. It is expensive to get the
> grooves cut. Keys are prone to work loose especially if there is
> vibration in the rotor section (there are several causes for this
> vibration so it will be a factor.) Keys transmitt torque unevenly.
>   I am useing an attachment procedure called shrink disk. Each pair of
>
> disks (which fit on either side of the rotors) has 8 1/4" bolt holes.
> These bolts go through the rotor section to pull the two disks
> togather.
> There is a stainless steel wedge between each shrink disk and the
> shaft.
> Tighting the bolts will force the wedge against the shaft uniformly
> all
> the way around the shaft. In may case I am useing a sleeve between the
>
> shaft and rotor section. The wedge forces the sleeve against the shaft
>
> and thus transmitts the energy along the whole length of the sleeve to
>
> the shaft. These disks also have the added benifit of forceing the
> disks
> to be perpendicular to the shaft.
>
> More comments below.
>
> "Larry J. Plato" wrote:
> >
> > Hi Paul!
> >
> > My name is Larry Plato, and I work with "The Energy Eggheads", a
> > group whose main goal is to collate energy information and research
> > and get the technology tested and PUT INTO USE!  I saw your post on
> > USA-Tesla and wanted to know if you would be willing to talk to me
> > about your plans to build a tesla turbine.  Because of my work, I am
>
> > out of the country and temporarily unable to work on my turbine.
> > I copied your email below, and continued on to describe my plans
> > for testing the Tesla Turbine.  If you would care to comment, that
> > would be nice.  I look forward to hearing from you.  FYI: I am
> > familiar with the Tesla Turbine Engine Builders:
> >
> >   http://www.execpc.com/~teba/index.html teba@...
> >
> > and intend to contact them as well.
> >
> > Larry Plato
> > Executive Director, Energy Eggheads
> > http://www.nnaf.net/~ljp/EnergyEggheads/index.html
> >
> > > Message: 6
> > >    Date: Sun, 05 Sep 1999 23:11:44 -0600
> > >    From: Paul Eitson <xyme2@...>
> > > Subject: Re: Tesla Motors
> > >
> > >  If you are talking about a Tesla turbine I am working on one now.
> I
> > > will post details as I go along. The 10 inch diameter turbine
> produces
> > > about 110 hp and is 4 inches wide. Several have been successfully
> > > constructed. TEBA (Tesla Engine Builders Association) can provide
> you
> > > with good diagrams and some technical assistance. I am attaching a
>
> > > diagram of some of the basic parts. I do not have a cad program so
> these
> > > drawings are only a representation.
> > >
> >
> > I have never built a tesla turbine, but I think I understand the
> > theory pretty well.  I have purchased copies of the three relevant
> > patents on Tesla turbines.  1) The fluidic valve, 2) The turbine
> > as an prime mover (engine), and the turbine as a means to recover
> > energy from a viscous stream (steam, etc) I do not have the patent
> > numbers in front of me.  I can provide those for reference to
> > anyone interested.  This winter I hope to turn the patents into
> > PDF files and post them online.
> >
> > I am planning on building a small "Tesla Fan" as my first test case.
>
> > In an article I can no longer find :-( a reported describes what
> sounds like
> > the blades of a tesla turbine mounted on a shaft and left
> un-enclosed
> > in space.  The resulting device would suck air into the central
> holes
> > and expel it from the edges of the blades.
>
> The teba manuel describes some blowers that have been constructed in
> this manner.
> >
> > For the benefit of those not familiar with the tesla turbine, it
> works
> > on two modes, as a pump, and as an engine.  Let's start with the
> tesla fan,
> > basically a tesla turbine acting as a pump, for the purpose of
> pumping air.
> > It consists of a motor, and on the shaft of the motor, are attached
> a number
> > of thin disks.
> >
> >   Each disk has a series of holes (usually three) punched in the
> > center.  The holes create the effect of "spokes" in the center.
> > This way you can attach the blades to the central shaft (the motor
> shaft)
> > and still have an opening in the center of the blades.
> >
> > As seen from the edge:
> >
> >            ^
> >            |  Wind
> >
> >          |||||
> >          |||||
> > [Motor] -+++++-  <-- airflow
> >          |||||
> >          |||||
> >
> >          5 blades
> >
> > The blades all have a hollow "hub and spoke" type center.
> > As the blades spin, air is dragged along the blades by "adhesion"
> > and since the blades spin in an arc, centripetal force cause the air
>
> > to be thrown out of the blades.  This creates a vacuum in the center
>
> > of the plates.  Since there are holes in the center of the disks,
> > air from the front of the tesla turbine rushes into the center
> holes.
>
> >
> > This is the basic operating mode of a tesla turbine as a pump.
> >
> > You can improve the efficiency by pre-spinning the air before it
> hits
> > the plates, this reduces the difference in speed between the
> incoming
> > fluid (or air) and the blades.  The easiest way to prespin the air
> > is to put a housing around the turbine and creating a single exit
> point
> > and a single inlet point for the air.
>
> Fred Mcgillard on the Turbine list is working on this point. He is
> hopeing to eleminate turbulance.
>
>    On the single inlet point
> > you put twists in the inlet tube, and the air rushing into the inlet
>
> > is spun by the grooves in the inles tube, and this 'pre spin'
> matches the
> > flow of the incoming air to the motion of the turbine blades.
> >
> > After I build this, I inted to make a system of washers to
> experiment with
> > how to space the plates based on the type of fluid.
>
> I read a section that indicated rotor size should be considered as
> well
> as driveing fluid. Larger plates require larger spaceing. For a 10
> inch
> turbine spaceing is as follows. 1/32 steam  1/16 water  1/64 air. If
> the
> plates are 18 inches, 1/32" for air.
> >
> > It seems like a simple test, but an easy one.  After that, I plan on
> moving
> > to a full blow TT pump, and then I want to start doing comparisons
> between
> > the TT's ability to move air (in cubic foot per minute divided by
> watts of
> > power used) as compared to traditional fans.
> >
> > After that, it's on to engine building...
> >
>
> My own design consists of two rotor section on the same shaft. One
> rotor
> works as an engine that runs on steam. The other rotor runs on vacuum.
>
> Fred is working on a diametrically opposite design. He has two rotor
> sections one of which acts as a compressor, the other as an engine. My
>
> design uses one rotor (a pump) to remove air from the engine. His
> design
> uses one rotor to force air into a combustion chamber then into the
> engine.
>
>
> My turbine list is TeslaTurbine@onelist. It is not very active but I
> post my progress reports there and would invite you to do the same.
>
> Paul
>
> --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor
> ----------------------------
>
> ONElist:  your connection to like-minds and kindred spirits.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paul,

Yes, from your description, those are a newer type of the device I
described.  From your description, I would think that they would work quite
well.

Jim Dooley

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Eitson [mailto:xyme2@...]
Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 1999 1:06 AM
To: TeslaTurbine@onelist.com
Subject: Re: [TeslaTurbine] Re: Tesla Motors


From: Paul Eitson <xyme2@...>

I just bought a couple of these things. Apparently they used on heavy
equipment like mining drills and such. What I got for about 150.00
dollars US was 2 pairs of disks, and two pairs of stainless steel rings
with a notch in them. The rings fit tightly around the sleeve and are
tapered with one side being thicker and with a small lip. In the case of
the turbine the lip fits against the thicker end plate. The disk slides
a little more than 1/2 way over the ring without forcing it. When the
bolts are tightened the disk pulls up completely over the ring forcing
it against the sleeve.
   The pair of rings go on the outside of the end plates and on the
inside of the two disks. The bolts which hold the disks together go
through the rotor section  causing the disks to pull up firmly against
the end plates and compress the entire rotor section. I tried to move
the sleeve with a 16 inch pipe wrench and was unable to do so.
   I think these are a relatively new type of the same device you
describe. They depend entirely on the wedge effect. These were provided
by the Orcutt Co.

> "Dooley, Jim" wrote:
>
> Paul,
>
> The device you are describing is marketed fairly widely as the
> "Taper-Lock Bushing" system.  I can no longer remember the
> manufacturer, as it's been several years since I last bought one.  You
> are right in that they do a good job of evenly transmitting torque,
> but if memory serves me correctly, I sort of remember seeing a keyway
> in the inner bushing also.  Again, it's been quite a while...
>
> Jim Dooley
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Eitson [mailto:xyme2@...]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 1999 12:32 AM
> To: Larry J. Plato; Turbine List
> Subject: [TeslaTurbine] Re: Tesla Motors
>
> From: Paul Eitson <xyme2@...>
>
> Will be happy to discuss my plans. I would recommend the book "Tesla's
>
> Engine" George Wiseman also has a good collection of turbine articles.
>
> 21st century books is another good reference source.
>    My readings indicate the turbine has one very serious problem:
> Vibration. The fan you are describeing should not be as seriously
> affected by that particular problem. I think a lot of this problem
> results from how the disks are attached to the shaft. Keys are (in my
> opinion) less than satisfactory for this purpose. Cutting grooves in
> the
> shaft to install keys weakens the shaft. It is expensive to get the
> grooves cut. Keys are prone to work loose especially if there is
> vibration in the rotor section (there are several causes for this
> vibration so it will be a factor.) Keys transmitt torque unevenly.
>   I am useing an attachment procedure called shrink disk. Each pair of
>
> disks (which fit on either side of the rotors) has 8 1/4" bolt holes.
> These bolts go through the rotor section to pull the two disks
> togather.
> There is a stainless steel wedge between each shrink disk and the
> shaft.
> Tighting the bolts will force the wedge against the shaft uniformly
> all
> the way around the shaft. In may case I am useing a sleeve between the
>
> shaft and rotor section. The wedge forces the sleeve against the shaft
>
> and thus transmitts the energy along the whole length of the sleeve to
>
> the shaft. These disks also have the added benifit of forceing the
> disks
> to be perpendicular to the shaft.
>
> More comments below.
>
> "Larry J. Plato" wrote:
> >
> > Hi Paul!
> >
> > My name is Larry Plato, and I work with "The Energy Eggheads", a
> > group whose main goal is to collate energy information and research
> > and get the technology tested and PUT INTO USE!  I saw your post on
> > USA-Tesla and wanted to know if you would be willing to talk to me
> > about your plans to build a tesla turbine.  Because of my work, I am
>
> > out of the country and temporarily unable to work on my turbine.
> > I copied your email below, and continued on to describe my plans
> > for testing the Tesla Turbine.  If you would care to comment, that
> > would be nice.  I look forward to hearing from you.  FYI: I am
> > familiar with the Tesla Turbine Engine Builders:
> >
> >   http://www.execpc.com/~teba/index.html teba@...
> >
> > and intend to contact them as well.
> >
> > Larry Plato
> > Executive Director, Energy Eggheads
> > http://www.nnaf.net/~ljp/EnergyEggheads/index.html
> >
> > > Message: 6
> > >    Date: Sun, 05 Sep 1999 23:11:44 -0600
> > >    From: Paul Eitson <xyme2@...>
> > > Subject: Re: Tesla Motors
> > >
> > >  If you are talking about a Tesla turbine I am working on one now.
> I
> > > will post details as I go along. The 10 inch diameter turbine
> produces
> > > about 110 hp and is 4 inches wide. Several have been successfully
> > > constructed. TEBA (Tesla Engine Builders Association) can provide
> you
> > > with good diagrams and some technical assistance. I am attaching a
>
> > > diagram of some of the basic parts. I do not have a cad program so
> these
> > > drawings are only a representation.
> > >
> >
> > I have never built a tesla turbine, but I think I understand the
> > theory pretty well.  I have purchased copies of the three relevant
> > patents on Tesla turbines.  1) The fluidic valve, 2) The turbine
> > as an prime mover (engine), and the turbine as a means to recover
> > energy from a viscous stream (steam, etc) I do not have the patent
> > numbers in front of me.  I can provide those for reference to
> > anyone interested.  This winter I hope to turn the patents into
> > PDF files and post them online.
> >
> > I am planning on building a small "Tesla Fan" as my first test case.
>
> > In an article I can no longer find :-( a reported describes what
> sounds like
> > the blades of a tesla turbine mounted on a shaft and left
> un-enclosed
> > in space.  The resulting device would suck air into the central
> holes
> > and expel it from the edges of the blades.
>
> The teba manuel describes some blowers that have been constructed in
> this manner.
> >
> > For the benefit of those not familiar with the tesla turbine, it
> works
> > on two modes, as a pump, and as an engine.  Let's start with the
> tesla fan,
> > basically a tesla turbine acting as a pump, for the purpose of
> pumping air.
> > It consists of a motor, and on the shaft of the motor, are attached
> a number
> > of thin disks.
> >
> >   Each disk has a series of holes (usually three) punched in the
> > center.  The holes create the effect of "spokes" in the center.
> > This way you can attach the blades to the central shaft (the motor
> shaft)
> > and still have an opening in the center of the blades.
> >
> > As seen from the edge:
> >
> >            ^
> >            |  Wind
> >
> >          |||||
> >          |||||
> > [Motor] -+++++-  <-- airflow
> >          |||||
> >          |||||
> >
> >          5 blades
> >
> > The blades all have a hollow "hub and spoke" type center.
> > As the blades spin, air is dragged along the blades by "adhesion"
> > and since the blades spin in an arc, centripetal force cause the air
>
> > to be thrown out of the blades.  This creates a vacuum in the center
>
> > of the plates.  Since there are holes in the center of the disks,
> > air from the front of the tesla turbine rushes into the center
> holes.
>
> >
> > This is the basic operating mode of a tesla turbine as a pump.
> >
> > You can improve the efficiency by pre-spinning the air before it
> hits
> > the plates, this reduces the difference in speed between the
> incoming
> > fluid (or air) and the blades.  The easiest way to prespin the air
> > is to put a housing around the turbine and creating a single exit
> point
> > and a single inlet point for the air.
>
> Fred Mcgillard on the Turbine list is working on this point. He is
> hopeing to eleminate turbulance.
>
>    On the single inlet point
> > you put twists in the inlet tube, and the air rushing into the inlet
>
> > is spun by the grooves in the inles tube, and this 'pre spin'
> matches the
> > flow of the incoming air to the motion of the turbine blades.
> >
> > After I build this, I inted to make a system of washers to
> experiment with
> > how to space the plates based on the type of fluid.
>
> I read a section that indicated rotor size should be considered as
> well
> as driveing fluid. Larger plates require larger spaceing. For a 10
> inch
> turbine spaceing is as follows. 1/32 steam  1/16 water  1/64 air. If
> the
> plates are 18 inches, 1/32" for air.
> >
> > It seems like a simple test, but an easy one.  After that, I plan on
> moving
> > to a full blow TT pump, and then I want to start doing comparisons
> between
> > the TT's ability to move air (in cubic foot per minute divided by
> watts of
> > power used) as compared to traditional fans.
> >
> > After that, it's on to engine building...
> >
>
> My own design consists of two rotor section on the same shaft. One
> rotor
> works as an engine that runs on steam. The other rotor runs on vacuum.
>
> Fred is working on a diametrically opposite design. He has two rotor
> sections one of which acts as a compressor, the other as an engine. My
>
> design uses one rotor (a pump) to remove air from the engine. His
> design
> uses one rotor to force air into a combustion chamber then into the
> engine.
>
>
> My turbine list is TeslaTurbine@onelist. It is not very active but I
> post my progress reports there and would invite you to do the same.
>
> Paul
>
> --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor
> ----------------------------
>
> ONElist:  your connection to like-minds and kindred spirits.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------

Show your ONElist SPIRIT!
<a href=" http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/tshirt2 ">Click Here</a>
With a new ONElist SHIRT available through our website.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you need a pair of these for your disk generator they are custom
made to fit your specks. Since they are stainless steel they should not
interfere with the magnetic. (I will check them to make sure.)  I am not
intending to make a profit here I will put you in direct contact with
the Orcutt co. (Although it is possible it may actually be a little
cheaper to go through me as I am friends of the family who owns the company.)
   Orcutt co. is a great company to work with. There engineer Rudy can
find almost any part. He has helped me with a lot of good suggestions
and is a generalist. He knows a little about most fields of
engineering.I might also suggest you call Surplus Center 800-488-3407
for a free catalog. Good prices on most stuff and a wide selection that
changes. I bought a 400 amp 30V generator for 179.00 from them.
   Let me know about the progress you are making on your generator. I had
considered building one myself but opted to buy one due to the
difficulty. I also have a local source for steel at 27 cents per pound.
It may however be cheaper to buy locally as shipping is so high. In any
event I can buy rounds, channel, flats ect for scrap prices.

    Stainless costs a mint here and I am looking for a cheap source for
that. 400.oo for two sheets of stainless. One was 9x5 316 16 gauge the
other was 22 guage 4x9 304. I wanted 444 hardness but all I could find
was a 6 ton bundle. Armco has a great catalog of there different types
of steel. If we could get enough people together to buy steel and have
it laser cut we could possibly get a better deal. There is a laser
cutter next door to the place I buy stainless. There prices were not too
unreasonable. The laser cutter has a lot of stainless scrap but no large pieces.
> "Dooley, Jim" wrote:
>
> Paul,
>
> Yes, from your description, those are a newer type of the device I
> described.  From your description, I would think that they would work
> quite well.
>
>

Unfortunately just about all the information the article provides is :
The oscillator can move a 20 lb weight at 80 times per second or many
hundreds of times per second if the stroke is shortened. That and a
picture of the finished oscillator with an accompanying diagram..

Besides knowing all the information would make it too easy.


  It could however be deduced from the wire gauge (not given) and the
weight 5 lb., as to how many amp turns are in each coil. We would have
to make several assumptions at this point. 1. Assume a 1 inch core to
wind the coil on.
2. Assume the coil is wound of the wire most suited for max. amperage.
Given: Two pairs of coils, one pair on each side of the piston. One coil
of each coil pair is in the magnetic field at all times.

Slightly less information is given about the electromagnets. The
electromagnets (one on each side) are composed of thin sheets of iron
with laminations between the sheets. "The squared off" C shaped magnets
face each other with the one coil from each  coil pair being between
them at all times. Assumptions: The iron core electromagnets are about 2
foot long on the back. The winding traverses the distance between the N
and S ends of the magnets but does not go past the inside corner of the
squared off C. The winding is about 1.5 feet long. From the diagram I
can see  the iron core which is 6 inches in thickness, uniformly
surrounded by a 6 inch thickness of coil. (I estimate 325 turns, 76
layers deep.) You will have to assume the type of wire used. My estimate
is based on 16 gauge wire. Thinner wire would of course have more turns.
  Feel free to guess.

This is where the information gets a little hairy. Current is drawn from
the coils to reinforce the magnetic field of the electromagnets. Tesla
also makes the statements: Now it is clear that if if instead of simply
depending on the current to drive the conductor out ot the field the
mechanically applied force is so timed that it helps the conductor to
get out ot the field, then it might leave the field with higher velocity
than it entered it, and thus one impulse is made to preponderate in EMF
over the other.

You may have to bear in mind that the device is propelled by liquid O2
which would help cool the wires and make them less resistant.


Paul

In the 30's a steam car was constructed with a continous loop boiler.
Has anyone ever heard of this car? Or of the boiler? The car type was a
model E.
Paul

Ran some tests on the boiler today. Results were ok for a built from
scratch boiler. I have finally finished pouring the containment housing
for the boiler. (Except for one piece that keeps cracking, due to having
an opening for the burner.) I did try rebar, however the sections are so
thin (2") the slab cracked along the rebars. A four inch piece would be
better but would weigh about 250-300lbs. A little heavy for me to
handle. A friend advises the use of chain link fence poured inside the
piece for reinforcement. I will try this procedure next.
  I substituted some cinder blocks for the section not poured until I can
pour the last piece. They are a fairly poor substitute so future results
may be better.
  The boiler took about 45 minutes to produce steam. I attribute this to
the 500 lb. of steel used to build the boiler and the cinder blocks I
used to form the one side.  I only used 3 gallons of water so the boiler
would heat more quickly.
   The first test was brief. As soon as the pressure came up several of
the joints started to leak. I shut down and taped the joints with teflon
tape. Teflon seemed to hold up to the heat and pressure fairly well. If
it fails in future tests I will try pipe dope unless someone has a
better suggestion.
  The second test was better. The joints held with no leaks. When I did
open the valve I was rewarded with a cloud of steam so thick I
momentarily disappeared according to eye witness accounts. The boiler
also generated steam in just 15 minutes despite the addition of two
gallons of water.  The steam was nearly invisible when the valve was
fully open indicating appropriate temperature. I will say most of the
steam was visible at first so I may not be getting enough starting pressure.
   Some problems I noted were: 1.Vermiculite based concrete was hot to
the touch indicating insufficient insulation. 2. A lot of heat leaks due
to the containment housing being propped into place for test purposes.
3. Pressure gauge does not appear to work or I never reached any
pressure.
   The gauge is in large increments 0-1500 but never moved at all. I know
I did have some pressure as a steel bar held in front of the steam
outlet was difficult to hold in one spot. There was also a loud
whistling when the valve was open partially or fully.
   Before proceeding I am going to install another gauge, install a pop
off valve, more insulation and pour the final section. I would like to
install a float switch but have not figured out how to do so at this
time. Below is a list of boiler essentials for those who dare to
construct a boiler. (I hope it is complete but read a book on the
subject just to be sure.) Boilers have a whole lot more parts than I
have listed but hopefully these will keep you from getting killed.

Blow down valve
2 pressure release valves
Float switch
Site gauge
Pressure cut off switch
Pressure guages

Flash boiling is the greatest danger to boiler construction.  The
greater the air pressure in the boiler, the higher the temperature
necessary to boil the water. So if your water is boiling at 23
atmospheres in a closed container and the pressure is suddenly released,
all the water could turn to steam in just a few seconds. Results are
catastrophic. Whole buildings have been destroyed by this occurrence.

paul

i am glad to see you realize how dangerous superheated water is, with flash
boiling. by all means get a low pressure gauge  0-100 so you can judge what you
have... and be sure to keep a video record [from a safe distance] so at least
you can sell the tapes to 6 pm news, if you live through a boiler explosion...

be careful - never stand in line with the trajectory of anything that can
explode...


good luck. hope i don't hear of your experiments on the 6 o clock news...


jerry
venice

Paul,

The only steam powered car I have heard of is the Stanley Steamer, but I
don't know when it was manufactured or the type of system it used.

Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Eitson [mailto:xyme2@...]
Sent: Monday, September 20, 1999 11:20 PM
To: Turbine List
Subject: [TeslaTurbine] Continous loop boiler.


From: Paul Eitson <xyme2@...>

  In the 30's a steam car was constructed with a continous loop boiler.
Has anyone ever heard of this car? Or of the boiler? The car type was a
model E.
Paul

Paul,

On your boiler, I would like to recommend that you add some type of
temperature measuring device in your steam outlet and obtain a set of steam
tables.  Using this measurement and a working pressure gauge you can
determine from the steam tables the saturation temperature for the pressure
that you are running.  Subtract that number from the reading on your
temperature readout and the answer is the degree of superheat you have
developed.  This number is useful in calculations for building your turbine.

It also gives you a good handle on the performance of your boiler.
Conventional bladed turbines cannot deal with saturated steam and must
operate only on superheated steam.  Thus, the only energy they can extract
from the steam is the energy of superheat.  A Tesla turbine does not have
this limitation, however, and is able to extract not only the energy of
superheat, but also the latent heat of vaporization energy as well.

Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Eitson [mailto:xyme2@...]
Sent: Monday, September 20, 1999 11:21 PM
To: Turbine List
Subject: [TeslaTurbine] Boiler tests How to build (or not) a Tesla
Turbine


From: Paul Eitson <xyme2@...>

   Ran some tests on the boiler today. Results were ok for a built from
scratch boiler. I have finally finished pouring the containment housing
for the boiler. (Except for one piece that keeps cracking, due to having
an opening for the burner.) I did try rebar, however the sections are so
thin (2") the slab cracked along the rebars. A four inch piece would be
better but would weigh about 250-300lbs. A little heavy for me to
handle. A friend advises the use of chain link fence poured inside the
piece for reinforcement. I will try this procedure next.
  I substituted some cinder blocks for the section not poured until I can
pour the last piece. They are a fairly poor substitute so future results
may be better.
  The boiler took about 45 minutes to produce steam. I attribute this to
the 500 lb. of steel used to build the boiler and the cinder blocks I
used to form the one side.  I only used 3 gallons of water so the boiler
would heat more quickly.
   The first test was brief. As soon as the pressure came up several of
the joints started to leak. I shut down and taped the joints with teflon
tape. Teflon seemed to hold up to the heat and pressure fairly well. If
it fails in future tests I will try pipe dope unless someone has a
better suggestion.
  The second test was better. The joints held with no leaks. When I did
open the valve I was rewarded with a cloud of steam so thick I
momentarily disappeared according to eye witness accounts. The boiler
also generated steam in just 15 minutes despite the addition of two
gallons of water.  The steam was nearly invisible when the valve was
fully open indicating appropriate temperature. I will say most of the
steam was visible at first so I may not be getting enough starting pressure.
   Some problems I noted were: 1.Vermiculite based concrete was hot to
the touch indicating insufficient insulation. 2. A lot of heat leaks due
to the containment housing being propped into place for test purposes.
3. Pressure gauge does not appear to work or I never reached any
pressure.
   The gauge is in large increments 0-1500 but never moved at all. I know
I did have some pressure as a steel bar held in front of the steam
outlet was difficult to hold in one spot. There was also a loud
whistling when the valve was open partially or fully.
   Before proceeding I am going to install another gauge, install a pop
off valve, more insulation and pour the final section. I would like to
install a float switch but have not figured out how to do so at this
time. Below is a list of boiler essentials for those who dare to
construct a boiler. (I hope it is complete but read a book on the
subject just to be sure.) Boilers have a whole lot more parts than I
have listed but hopefully these will keep you from getting killed.

Blow down valve
2 pressure release valves
Float switch
Site gauge
Pressure cut off switch
Pressure guages

Flash boiling is the greatest danger to boiler construction.  The
greater the air pressure in the boiler, the higher the temperature
necessary to boil the water. So if your water is boiling at 23
atmospheres in a closed container and the pressure is suddenly released,
all the water could turn to steam in just a few seconds. Results are
catastrophic. Whole buildings have been destroyed by this occurrence.

Paul,

I have one other suggestion as well for your boiler walls.  Try reinforcing
the concrete with woven mesh steel screen in several layers.  The type
called "hardware cloth" is fairly cheap and should work well.

Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Eitson [mailto:xyme2@...]
Sent: Monday, September 20, 1999 11:21 PM
To: Turbine List
Subject: [TeslaTurbine] Boiler tests How to build (or not) a Tesla
Turbine


From: Paul Eitson <xyme2@...>

   Ran some tests on the boiler today. Results were ok for a built from
scratch boiler. I have finally finished pouring the containment housing
for the boiler. (Except for one piece that keeps cracking, due to having
an opening for the burner.) I did try rebar, however the sections are so
thin (2") the slab cracked along the rebars. A four inch piece would be
better but would weigh about 250-300lbs. A little heavy for me to
handle. A friend advises the use of chain link fence poured inside the
piece for reinforcement. I will try this procedure next.
  I substituted some cinder blocks for the section not poured until I can
pour the last piece. They are a fairly poor substitute so future results
may be better.
  The boiler took about 45 minutes to produce steam. I attribute this to
the 500 lb. of steel used to build the boiler and the cinder blocks I
used to form the one side.  I only used 3 gallons of water so the boiler
would heat more quickly.
   The first test was brief. As soon as the pressure came up several of
the joints started to leak. I shut down and taped the joints with teflon
tape. Teflon seemed to hold up to the heat and pressure fairly well. If
it fails in future tests I will try pipe dope unless someone has a
better suggestion.
  The second test was better. The joints held with no leaks. When I did
open the valve I was rewarded with a cloud of steam so thick I
momentarily disappeared according to eye witness accounts. The boiler
also generated steam in just 15 minutes despite the addition of two
gallons of water.  The steam was nearly invisible when the valve was
fully open indicating appropriate temperature. I will say most of the
steam was visible at first so I may not be getting enough starting pressure.
   Some problems I noted were: 1.Vermiculite based concrete was hot to
the touch indicating insufficient insulation. 2. A lot of heat leaks due
to the containment housing being propped into place for test purposes.
3. Pressure gauge does not appear to work or I never reached any
pressure.
   The gauge is in large increments 0-1500 but never moved at all. I know
I did have some pressure as a steel bar held in front of the steam
outlet was difficult to hold in one spot. There was also a loud
whistling when the valve was open partially or fully.
   Before proceeding I am going to install another gauge, install a pop
off valve, more insulation and pour the final section. I would like to
install a float switch but have not figured out how to do so at this
time. Below is a list of boiler essentials for those who dare to
construct a boiler. (I hope it is complete but read a book on the
subject just to be sure.) Boilers have a whole lot more parts than I
have listed but hopefully these will keep you from getting killed.

Blow down valve
2 pressure release valves
Float switch
Site gauge
Pressure cut off switch
Pressure guages

Flash boiling is the greatest danger to boiler construction.  The
greater the air pressure in the boiler, the higher the temperature
necessary to boil the water. So if your water is boiling at 23
atmospheres in a closed container and the pressure is suddenly released,
all the water could turn to steam in just a few seconds. Results are
catastrophic. Whole buildings have been destroyed by this occurrence.

Paul,
                 The steam car you are referring to is the Dobel,
      manufactured from the early '20s to early '30s. Abner Dobel also
      designed buses and lorries for New Zealand an Germany. The boilers
      were of particular note as they achieved a head of steam in less than
      45 seconds from cold. They were of course a monotube boiler 550 Ft
      long, with the oil burner feeding in the top and exhaust out the
      bottom. They ran steam at 700psi and some as high as 1500psi and
      temperatures as high as 650 F.
      The vehicles were well known for their long life and high speed
      capabilities.
      You will find some web references and if you need more information I
      can assist.

      Regards Julian
      Australia(Royale042@...)


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: [TeslaTurbine] Continous loop boiler.
Author:  <TeslaTurbine@onelist.com> at internet
Date:    20/9/99 22:19


From: Paul Eitson <xyme2@...>

  In the 30's a steam car was constructed with a continous loop boiler.
Has anyone ever heard of this car? Or of the boiler? The car type was a
model E.
Paul

Hi people:
I'm new to your list.  Looks like you people are really doing things and
not just talking about them.

Would anyone like to hear my idea on how to convert ambient temperature
heat energy into mechanical energy?  Especially you steam engine people.
This thing is a lot like a steam engine.
Sincerely, Boyd Cantrell

Jim,
   Thanks for the pointers, comments follow.

> "Dooley, Jim" wrote:
>
> Paul,
>
> On your boiler, I would like to recommend that you add some type of
> temperature measuring device in your steam outlet and obtain a set of
> steam tables.  Using this measurement and a working pressure gauge you
> can determine from the steam tables the saturation temperature for the
> pressure that you are running.  Subtract that number from the reading
> on your temperature readout and the answer is the degree of superheat
> you have developed.

Excellent advice. Should I try the library for the tables?  So far the
steam seems very wet and I did not run it for very long. I was also a
bit concerned that the pressure went down fairly rapidly but I did have
the valve wide open.

This number is useful in calculations for
> building your turbine.

I would like you to go more into detail on how to use this information
in actual turbine construction. At this point I am just going by
previous designs of the turbine.

If the chain link idea does not work I will try the hardware cloth for
concrete reinforcement, thanks for all the tips.
Paul

> "Dooley, Jim" wrote:
>
> Paul,
>
> The only steam powered car I have heard of is the Stanley Steamer, but
> I don't know when it was manufactured or the type of system it used.
>
> Jim

Jim,

I found out about this car by accident. It was manufactured just prior
to WW2.  I was leafing through magazines in a local bookstore when I
read about this car. The car itself was never put into production
because it was developed by an eccentric genius, who kept changing the
design. There were about 25 made, 2 of which were owned by Howard Hughs.
They would go 0 to 75 in six seconds and would travel 500 miles on 5
gallons of water. (I don't remember how much fuel was used) In any event
the boiler consisted of a continuos coil inside and insulated jacket.
Heat was reclaimed from the engine and used to preheat the water prior
to going back into the heating coil. (Construction details were lacking
in the article.) Unlike other steam engines which ejected steam into the
air, this car kept the steam in a closed loop. A minimal amount of fuel
was consumed due to recycling the heat from the engine.
   I am going to use a water cooled condenser for my turbine in which the
cooling water will be fed into the boiler. Hopefully the water will be
near boiling before it enters the boiler.

> paul
>
> i am glad to see you realize how dangerous superheated water is, with flash
> boiling. by all means get a low pressure gauge  0-100 so you can judge what
you
> have... and be sure to keep a video record [from a safe distance] so at least
> you can sell the tapes to 6 pm news, if you live through a boiler explosion...
>
> be careful - never stand in line with the trajectory of anything that can
> explode...
>
> good luck. hope i don't hear of your experiments on the 6 o clock news...

The boiler explosion I read about claimed chunks of steel were found a
mile away. I think it was a 500 gallon tank constructed in the 50's.
    My guage shows 0 to 1500 (in increments of 25psi) but never made it
off 0. This makes me suspicious of the guage, which I will replace
before more tests.  I am also planning on installing a blast mat prior
to pressure tests.
   I had another Email that suggested flash boiling small amounts of
water (in terms of ounces) which I may try also.
   My pop off valve is set at 225psi so I never made it that high. Keep
watching the news just in case....

paul

You betcha, post away.
Paul



Boyd cantrell wrote:
>
> From: Boyd cantrell <Boytrell@...>
>
> Hi people:
> I'm new to your list.  Looks like you people are really doing things and
> not just talking about them.
>
> Would anyone like to hear my idea on how to convert ambient temperature
> heat energy into mechanical energy?  Especially you steam engine people.
> This thing is a lot like a steam engine.
> Sincerely, Boyd Cantrell
>

Julian,
    Thanks for the information on this subject. I was beginning to think
I had dreamed the whole thing. I will try a web search on this first but
may request assistance at a later time.
Paul

Feel free to post any information on this subject you wish, this is an
open list. It is also my personal belief that sometimes old technologies
can be combined into new systems. New materials can also make some of
the old technologies practical which were not when practical when created.

julian.purcell@... wrote:
>
> From: <julian.purcell@...>
>
>      Paul,
>                 The steam car you are referring to is the Dobel,
>      manufactured from the early '20s to early '30s. Abner Dobel also
>      designed buses and lorries for New Zealand an Germany. The boilers
>      were of particular note as they achieved a head of steam in less than
>      45 seconds from cold. They were of course a monotube boiler 550 Ft
>      long, with the oil burner feeding in the top and exhaust out the
>      bottom. They ran steam at 700psi and some as high as 1500psi and
>      temperatures as high as 650 F.
>      The vehicles were well known for their long life and high speed
>      capabilities.
>      You will find some web references and if you need more information I
>      can assist.
>
>      Regards Julian
>      Australia(Royale042@...)
>
> ______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
> Subject: [TeslaTurbine] Continous loop boiler.
> Author:  <TeslaTurbine@onelist.com> at internet
> Date:    20/9/99 22:19
>
> From: Paul Eitson <xyme2@...>
>
>  In the 30's a steam car was constructed with a continous loop boiler.
> Has anyone ever heard of this car? Or of the boiler? The car type was a
> model E.
> Paul
>
>
>
>

Paul found something @ http://members.aol.com/JReynol/tm.htm
              titled the evolution of Doble E   a technical
evaluation.......cost $9.00  regards, FM

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
thermodynamics.

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.
                              FINIS
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Appendix,
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

Boyd,

Thnx for the post.

   I think I understand the concept behind your design, but it would
help me if you provided diagrams and further explanation.  What type
of computer do you use, and what drawing tools do you have available?
I do not believe your device will work, since you are just pushing heat
around, and letting it move back to equalibrium.  The double whammy is
just taking more complete advantage of the temperature gradient you
created with the AC unit.

   I am reluctant to be overly negative without being certain
I understand your principle.

Now the interesting thing, to me, is the discussion on the second
"LAW" of thermodynamics.  It is considerably stronger that you
imagine, as a considerable number of mathermatical proofs have been
done to prove it.  But the interesting thing about proofs, is that
you always start with assumptions, and then using rules of logic,
you draw conclusions.

If, and only if, the assumptions hold, then the second law of
thermodynamics is an absolute fact, beyond question.  We have very
good reason to believe in the assumptions, but they are just that,
assumptions.

I would suggest you do some reading on the laws of thermodynamics, and
then make a case for the assumptions being invalid.

You will probably want to read the excellent posts on the Entropy
Systems web page.  Sanjay Amin claims to have invented a device
that is a perpetual motion machine of the second kind.  His arguments
for it functioning center around some debate over the equilibrium
temperature of a column of gas, subject to gravity.  If you understand
calculus, there is an excellent debate over the proofs of wether such
a column of gas will reach a uniform equilibrium temperature, or wether
the temperature will stratify based on height.

Depending on your assumptions, you can prove either point.

Consider checking these out,

Larry Plato
Executive Director, Energy Eggheads

http://www.entropysystems.com/Josefloschmidth.htm

Abstract: In 1868 J.C. Maxwell proved that direct conversion of heat
to power would become possible, if the equilibrium temperature in
a vertical column of gas subject to gravity were a function of
height. However, Maxwell had claimed that the temperature had to
be the same at all points of the column. So did Boltzmann. Their
opponent was Loschmidt, who died more than 100 years ago in 1895. He
claimed that the equilibrium temperature declined with height, and
that direct conversion of heat to power, by means of such column
was compatible with the second law of thermodynamics. Thus he was
convinced he had detected a never ending source of usable energy for
mankind. In this article, new proof is given for the hypothesis that
the equilibrium temperature is indeed a function of height. Thus
the 100th anniversary of Loschmidt's death shall be commemorated.

I want to point something out here: When I looked this over, I did
not examine the calculus, as it has been way too long for me, and I
did not feel like spending the time.  The interesting thing though,
from my point of view, is that this does not, a priori, violate
the second law.  The decrease in local entropy is accomplished
via gravity, and thus, we cannot say anything about the global
entropy in the closed system, without looking at the entropy state
of the gravitic source.  Since we do not know what causes gravity,
the proof is really stating what happens to a closed system influenced
by by an outside system (the local gravity of the body outside of the
closed column).  Thus, the second law, is, in my opinion, moot in
this case, since we do not consider the energy imparted by gravity.

Now for the advanced reader, Einstein's relativity says that gravity
is not a force, but a curvature of spacetime, and if relativity
is correct in that regard, then gravity is not an energy source,
and hence, this is a violation of the second law.  Oh heck,
I've gone cross-eyed (this was a quote from the fictional hero
in a comedy trying to understand time travel.  His bosses reply,
"I suggest you don't think about it")

So anyway, the proof is in the doing.  I have been in contact with
entropy systems, and I will keep you informed as I learn more...

http://www.entropysystems.com/Feynman.htm

Mr Feynman was a Nobel Prize winner, and his comments are more general in
nature.  The point of this paper is that we never really know for certain
physical laws, we merely built up confidence in them over time by performing
tests and seeing the results agree with our laws.

http://www.entropysystems.com/Carnotlimitations.htm

Discusses why it is possible, although statistically impossible in practice
to have a decrease in entropy on a local scale.

Since you never created any new source of heat, your double whammy does not
really exist.  You do not, as far as I can tell, propose a mechanism to
access heat that did not exist in the initial system.

Cheers,

Plato

On 23 Sep 1999 07:29:28 -0000 TeslaTurbine@onelist.com wrote:
,--
| Message: 1
|    Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 10:13:56 -0700
|    From: Boyd cantrell <Boytrell@...>
| Subject: THERMO-DYNE  MACHINE
|
|
| 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
| thermodynamics.
|
| 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.
|                              FINIS
| ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
| Appendix,
| 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
|
|
|
|
| _____________________________________________________________________________
__
| _____________________________________________________________________________
__
`--

From Boyd Cantrell

Larry:
I always try to learn somthing from every one who thinks that they have
somthing important to say.  I don't always answer them but in your case I
will for the sake of the other members who might be lead astray by your words.

The following are your statements in the order that you wrote them.

You said,
I do not believe your device will work, since you are just pushing heat
around, and letting it move back to equalibrium.

Larry do you realize that you are saying that a heat engine does not
convert any of the heat into mechanical energy?

You said,
The double whammy is just taking more complete advantage of the temperature
gradient you created with the AC unit.

Thats exactly the point I tryed to get across when I said that I didn't
invent it, that it was invented the first time someone put a condenser on a
steam engine.

You said,
I am reluctant to be overly negative without being certain I understand
your principle.

It doesn't sound like that to me.

You said,
Now the interesting thing, to me, is the discussion on the second "LAW" of
thermodynamics.  It is considerably stronger that you imagine, as a
considerable number of mathermatical proofs have been done to prove it.

Now this is where I have learned somthing.  That is from now on I drop the
part where I say that the drinking bird gets around the second law.  I will
waste no more time on interpretations of the second law.  I will just say
that the drinking bird works on ambient temperature heat energy and be done
with it. Then I'll waste no more time on someone who says that the bird
doesn't work on ambient temperature heat energy.  It's obvious that if you
take away the water (which is cheap on this wet planet) or take away the
heat then the bird stops working.  I know that you don't like having to
face that truth but you have to do it anyway.

You said,
I would suggest you do some reading on the laws of thermodynamics, and
then make a case for the assumptions being invalid.

I started on it when I was 45 years old (18 years ago) and I do have many
words on the subject.  It is entitled  "MISCONCEPTIONS OF THERMODYNAMICS"
which I will include at the end of this letter.  You other members can read
it or if you'd rather not then just trash it or save it for a boring day.

You said,
You will probably want to read the excellent posts on the Entropy
Systems web page.  Sanjay Amin claims to have invented a device
that is a perpetual motion machine of the second kind.  His arguments
for it functioning center around some debate over the equilibrium
temperature of a column of gas, subject to gravity.

I've already been there and know about the Amin cycle.  I do not believe
that a heat engine would work that much better if operating in
intergalactic space in week gravity but the real proof to me is that he
wants $75,000  for a 76 watt unit.  That tells me that no one will order
one so he will never have to prove that it works.

You said,
Now for the advanced reader, Einstein's relativity says that gravity is not
a force, but a curvature of spacetime,

Larry you should be very careful when trying to quote such a great man.
His words were one half curvature and one half gravity.  I'm not too crazy
about your Feynman but Einstein is my Idol.

You said,
Since you never created any new source of heat, your double whammy does not
really exist.

WOW!  You forgot that in your first paragraph you said it comes from taking
more complete advantage of the temperature gradient that I created with the
Air Conditioner. Oh it exist alright.  Thats why the Power companys bother
to use it by incorporating Condensers.

Now Larry you skipped right past the most important part.  The part that I
warned you was the real meat of the subject after the three lines of
asterisks.  This fact that different refrigerants have different COPs is
the most important of all my artical.  And anyone knows that what goes up
hill comes back down and pays back what ever work it took to put it up
there.  (except for losses of course).

Cheers,
Boyd
PS  I'll enclose my work.  It follows.

MISCONCEPTIONS OF THERMODYNAMICS
by Boyd Cantrell

INTRODUCTION
To boil an egg we waste a lot of thermal energy by continuously transfering
new heat through the water and egg when we could actually just get it all
up to a good boil and then put it into a thermos bottle to retard the loss
of heat and let it cook by using the same thermal energy continuously as
long as it last.
Now you know that would work.  We insulate our homes and wear thick
clothing to retain and make use of the same thermal energy as long as
possible.
No other form of energy can be used that way.  You can't put light photons
into a mirrored box in order to see by them while saving them.  You can't
store an electrical potential in a capacitor or battery and make use of it
at the same time.  You can't store mechanical energy and make use of it at
the same time.  No other form of energy can be used this way.    So this
puts thermal energy in a class all by itself and I say that it is the least
understood energy in our lives.

As a result of studying Thermodynamics for eighteen years and making some
experiments of my own design I have found that the books are correct in
some areas and incorrect in others.  This fiction mixed with fact leads to
many wrong conclusions.  In this discourse I will expose many of the early
statements that were made by men like Carnot, Clausius, Kelvin and Planck.
The statements are the cornerstones in the foundations of Thermodynamics
and are still being taught today by the educational establishment.  I
intend to show that the field of thermodynamics is still in it's dark ages.

JOULE'S FREE-EXPANSION
I'm sure that you have seen the illustrations of Joule's pressure vessels
under water in the so-called closed system experiment.  Many modern books
today still use it to try to prove somthing that is not true.  They state
that after the valve is opened and after the gas has expanded and has come
to rest then the internal energy is the same as it was before because the
gas did not decrease in temperature.  I only ask that you realize that
yesterday someone did work on that gas to put it all into the one vessel.
Now today they open the valve, loose all of that work and claim no loss.

I also see that the one pressurized vessel was the closed system, not both
vessels.  Then he allowed the gas to leave that closed system and enter
another.  But if that don't help you understand then just know that Joule's
  himself finally realized that the density of the water was so great
compaired to that of the air ( and I say, not to mention that the specific
heat of the water was four times that of the air ) that if the gas had
decreased in temperature upon expansion (which it did ) it would have gone
undetected.  So if your book is still using that illustration you would be
better off if you just mark that part wrong.

As I said, Joules himself realized that said experiment was no good so they
devised the Porous-plug  expeariment.  Now  that  is not free expansion as
the gas is doing work on that second piston, which leads to even more
confusion.  The books will have you believe that if a gas does work during
expansion then it gives up internal energy, but if it expands freely then
it don't.  So you are expected to believe that the gas has the intelligence
to know wheather or not it's expansion is being taken advantage of.

IDEAL GAS
The subject of Thermodynamics would have been less confusing if they had
never dreamed up this Ideal gas.  It does not exist.  If it did it could
not have an inversion point like a real gas and it could not condense like
a real gas so there is no point in make-believe.  Just know what real gases
do and you won't get confused.  Let me put it this way,  If you were to
charge up your Refrigeration unit with Ideal gas it would not give a good
Coefficient of Performance like the real gases do that go through a phase
change.  Or if you tryed to power a steam engine with Ideal gas it couldn't
boil because it was never in a liquid state to start with and it couldn't
condense in the Condenser and create the high vacuums that increase the
efficiencys, Or even be recirculated by the liquid feed pump.

ALL GASES EXPAND AT THE SAME RATE
Yes it's still in the books.  If it were true then you would only need one
pressure chart for all gases.  You could just line up the boiling points,
count off so many degrees and find the pressure.  But in reality we must
have charts for all gases as evidenced by the ASHRAE fundimentals handbook
or your refrigeration book.

KELVIN-PLANCK STATEMENT OF THE SECOND LAW
It says that you can't take heat from a single reservoir and convert it
completly into work ( because there is no cooler  reservoir for the heat to
flow down hill into. )  I say that when you ignite the Afterburner of a jet
aircraft the engine up front is now exhausting into a hotter reservoir than
before but it still works.  No I do not say that it works as well as it did
before, but it still works.  Let me say it this way,  the plane is not
flying on Afterburner alone.  I have one other thing to say about the
Kelvin-Planck statement.  That is that even if it were true there is
somthing that most people don't really see in that statement, It is the
word COMPLETLY,  I don't expect COMPLETE conversion of heat into work, Do
you?  That word is always there.  Some books say COMPLETLY.  Some books say
HAVE NO OTHER EFFECT THAN.  Some books say AN EQUAL AMOUNT OF WORK. But it
is always there.

ANOTHER INTERPRETATION OF THE SECOND LAW
     " 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. 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 do work.  It is a cyclic device that works on
ambient temperature heat energy and it proves that this interpretation of
the second law  is wrong.

CARNOT'S THEOREM
It states that the efficiency of all reversible engines operating between
the same two temperatures is the same and no irreversible engine working
between the same two temperatures can have a greater efficiency than the
reversible engine.  By the way, Later on Clausius and Kelvin backed him up
on that statement because they thought it was a necessary consequence of
the second law of thermodynamics.

That statement is wrong and has thrown people off track for many
generations.
We all know that a steam Turbine is far more efficient than  Carnot's old
reciprocating engines that he would have us use in reverse as in a
refrigeration cycle.  Now while a steam Turbine is the most efficient steam
engine it would not be that efficient if used as a compressor in a
refrigeration cycle.  Oh it would compress but it makes a better Engine
than it does a Compressor!
Or to use a refrigerator in reverse as an Engine would not qualify as a
cyclic device because there is no Feed Pump.

I would think that the Authors of the books would at least realize that the
second law itself prohibits an exact reversible process  because of
friction.  In the forward mode some of the work is lost through  friction,
so in reverse those frictional losses would have to become mechanical
energy, but Entropy won't allow that to happen.  There is just no way to
get around the fact that the Carnot Theorem is wrong.  It should be obvious
to any one that an Irreversible engine  is the most efficient engine, Not
the Reversible one as still stated today by the educational establishment.

I think I can make you see it if I say it this way.   In  Carnot's
illustration he has the Refrigerator and Engine coupled togather  in
between the hot and cold reservoir.  Now let's see those reservoirs as the
terminals of a battery.  And in between those terminals are an electric
motor and Generator with their shafts coupled togather.  Now you can see
that the battery would soon be dead. To keep  the battery charged the
combination of Motor and Generator  would have to be 100% efficient.
That proves that no combination can be100% efficient.  It does not mean
that one is more efficient than the other.
In automobiles we use a series connected motor for the starter because it
delivers high torque when needed,  but to charge the battery we use a
shunted unit.  Thats where the armature is connected in parallel with the
fields and believe me that generator would not compare with the series
motor for starting the engine.  Now today we use alternators and rectifiers
because alternators charge good even at idle speed.  So we can see once
again that things which are made for a specific purpose work better for
that purpose than somthing that is reversible.  The shunt motor or
generator is reversible but it is not the best or the most efficient.
It's the same for Carnot's illustration, It simply proves that no
combination of reversible and or irreversible engines operating between
those two reservoirs can be 100% efficient.  It does not prove as he
thought that a reversible engine is the most efficient.  It's just the
opposite in the real world.

OK, Carnot stated his theorem,  Clausius and Kelvin swallowed it.  The
blind leading the blind.  But that was a long time ago.  They didn't have
the Steam turbins, Afterburners and many other things that we have today so
they can be excused but we can't.  People are still swallowing it in
colleges all over the world today.

CARNOT'S EQUATIONS
With the Heat engine formula, the closer T1 is to T2  the less work you get
for your heat right up to the point where they are the same temperature and
you get nothing.  On the other hand with the refrigeration formula and the
heat pump formula, the closer T1 is to T2 the more heat you get for your
work but when they are the same and you would get the maximum in the real
world the formula says zero output.  I guess one formula working out of
three is good enough for the educational establishment but not for me.
Somthing is wrong there.

  HEAT ENGINES CONVERT HEAT INTO WORK. and
   REFRIGERATORS CONVERT THE WORK OF COMPRESSION INTO HEAT.
Both of those statements are wrong.  A Heat engine converts Pressure into
work.  While it is true that the pressure was caused by the heat, it's not
a conversion of heat into work.  All of the heat is still there after the
work is done, it is all spread out and at a lower temperature but still
there.  A good example is the Hydroelectric plant, the pressure of the
water has been converted into work but the water itself is all still there
at the base of the Dam.
It's the same with the heat comming out of an Engine.  It's all still there
but spread out.  We could compress it to concentrate it just like we could
do work to lift the water back to the top of the Dam.  It would be
fruitless of course, but I'm just trying to get the point across that the
heat is all still there. It's
the pressure that is gone.  I say that once thermal energy exist it can not
be converted into other forms of energy or done away with in any manner.
Thermal energy is not in the same class with the others.  Thats why heat
engine efficiencys seem so low compaired to electric motors, hydraulic
motors etc.   Efficiency is the wrong word for it because a Heat engine
does not convert the heat, It simply takes advantage of it's passing.

PROOF
I have made several experiments with thermal energy over the years.  The
one I will explain now was the one that proves that  Heat engines do not
convert the heat. they  convert the pressure.  I used a two horsepower
gasoline engine.  I enclosed the flywheel and magneto, sealed it and the
entire engine so that it would run under water.  I removed the carburetor
so that I could run it on natural gas.  The rate of gas flow was controlled
by a regulator and meter.  I bolted the engine down inside of a wooden box.
  I let the output shaft protrude out of the box by using a rotary seal.
With belt and pulleys I connected the shaft to the shaft of a one
horsepower induction motor which I mounted on the outside of the box.
I then routed the engine exhaust through a heat exchanger on it's way
through the water to the atmosphere.  I filled the box with water and
maintained a slow flow of water through the box during the entire
experiment.  I installed a wooden top on the box with a pyrometer to show
the temperature of the water at all times.  I used the induction motor to
start the engine.  I let the engine work very hard in trying to turn the
induction motor faster than 1860 rpm.  This four pole induction motor when
under load will slip from line frequency of 1800 rpm to1740 rpm.  By the
same physics you can make it slip upward to 1860 rpm by turning it faster
than line frequency, but you can't turn it faster than 1860.  At this point
the electric motor was working as an Alternator and pushing energy back
into the main grid.  As a motor it was labeled 12 ampers at 120 volts so I
adjusted the engine speed to make the Ammeter show 12 ampers so as to not
burn up the motor.   ( By the way, I was an electric motor rewinder,
trouble shooter, repairman etc. for 25 years so I learned early on that you
could use an induction motor as an Alternator. )

As I said  I let the engine work very hard in trying to drive the motor
faster than 1860 rpm  untill the increasing water temperature stabilized at
118 degrees fahrenheit.  Then I unpluged the motor from the power line
allowing the engine to run freely with out doing the work anymore.  It was
still burning the same volume of fuel but now all of the energy could go
into heating of the water.  I let the engine run freely this way for over
an hour in many tests but the water temperature did not increase.  This
tells me that heat engines do not convert heat into work.  By the way, if
anyone wants to recreate that experiment,  I advise you to go ahead and
spend the money for a Generator so you can power some light bulbs because
if you just show some one that you are creating a load on the engine by
using an induction motor like I did  they may not understand.  So don't
give them that chance.  Even a used automobile Alternator and some
headlights will do the job.

Now the flip side of that is a Refrigerator or Heat pump.  They tell you
that when you do work to extract heat from the cool reservoir that you get
to add the work that you did to the heat that you extracted.  I
say that you can't have your cake and eat it too.  I challenge them to take
their Heat pump to Alaska when it's  twenty fahrenheit degrees below zero
and make it deliver an amount of heat that is equal to their work of
compression.

When we do work on a gas to compress it we exchange our work for pressure.
If that gas has a lot of thermal energy in it then we can squeeze out a lot
but if it had very little thermal energy then we can squeeze out only a
little.  Please don't let them make you believe that you get to add your
work of compression as heat.  There is no other field of physics where they
say that you get to add your work on top of what you exchanged your work
for.  And I say not this field either.  You can convert all of the work you
want into heat by friction but not by compressing a gas or a spring.

I have had rebutals from professors telling me that college students all
over the world perform experiments every day and get the expected results.
  I ask them which experiments?, the Porous plug experiment does not prove
that  a heat engine converts heat into work.  Joules tanks under water
don't prove it.  I tell them to operate a Heat engine under water like I
did if they want the truth.  They do not answer me after that.

APPENDIX
The educational establishment just continues to restate the same old
statements that were in the books that they learned from.  Forty eight
years ago my high school science teacher said that every time we discover
or invent somthing new it is our duty to look back and see if all that we
thought we knew still fits.
Thermodynamics is the one subject where all concerned have failed to do
just that.
                   FINIS

Thanks for the information on this. Several interesting publications here.
    Check out www.nasatec.com for a free publication of the latest
technical advances.  21st century books has a decent selection of energy
books. I don't remember the web adress.

FMSTARK@... wrote:
>
> From: FMSTARK@...
>
> Paul found something @ http://members.aol.com/JReynol/tm.htm
>              titled the evolution of Doble E   a technical
> evaluation.......cost $9.00  regards, FM
>
>

Fred McGalliard wrote:
>

>
> Thanks I hope it helps a bit. You are doing interesting work.
>
> > I may have been unclear about the amount of pressure I am shooting for.
> > Even though the gauge goes up to 1500psi I hope never to get above
> > 200psi. It has increments of 25psi although it never registered at all.
>
> Just occurred to me. You could borrow an air compressor and use a tire
> gauge to test this system up to about 50PSIG. This would be a good match
> point for your gauge. If it reads 50 when the tire gauge does, then you
> are OK. Otherwise, the zero offset bug may have bitten you.
>
> Preheating the water by circulating it around your fire box is
> definitely OK. The standard flash boilers, I think, heat a metal surface
> and spray the water on the hot metal. Obviously a brief interruption in
> the spray results in molten metal rather quickly. A touchy system for an
> amateur. I figured the hot peanut oil would give you enough thermal mass
> to keep the heat fairly constant using a standard burner control. The
> Flash vaporization part would then work fine. A large diameter
> serpentine tube at the top of the oil bath, with a small diameter spray
> tube with a number of small holes to spray the water out should make the
> flash boiler . The spray tube could be inserted and silver soldered to
> the top of the steam tube, then the tube bent into the serpentine.
> Alternatively, you could use a wick to draw the water into the tube and
> make contact to form steam. If the feed system does not require force,
> the pressure of the boiler can be used to draw fresh water. Then you
> just pressurize the water supply, and the boiler takes care of the rest.
> (When you tap off steam, the pressure drops and more water is sucked out
> of the pressurized water tank. With a small plenum and pump the system
> can just pump to keep the plenum water level at a certain point and the
> pressure will then stay fixed. Simple and easy to automate.)

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
> thermodynamics.
>
> 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.
>                              FINIS
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Appendix,
> 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
>
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------