tj Frazir wrote: > The laws of physics says .. > evry time you convert the energy you will have a loss ,,,and evry time > its a mecanical convrsion of thrust its a big loss.
> So that proves not convering thrust into rotation is MUCH better then > converting thrust into mechnical rotoation then to thrust.
Well, Life creatures seem to disagree with this concept. In all living cells energy conversion usually looks like this
1) chemical reactions (of many different kinds) create proton gradient across the membrane 2) enzyme (say engine 1) transfers energy of the gradient of H+ to energy of creation of ATP molecule from ADP. 3) Energy of ATP to ADP conversion is used to power all other things.
There are exceptions from it, for example "motor" enzyme that turns the shaft that move the bacteria around (Flagella), is powered directly by the proton gradient. But even than, it is a two-step energy conversion.
So it this multi-step step chain created by evolution because it does not like the cell to be efficient?
I say, no, it is because the alternative was even less efficient.
There is always a compromise between robustness of the design and its efficiency. When some part fails, it needs to be replaced, which also costs energy. So overall energy balance (that evolution optimizes) has to consider both momentary efficiency and robustness.
It has a piston engine to run on gas. Thats not the air motor. Thats disinformation because th fed will not allow a slide vane steam engine . The air motor nano is 2 engines 1 piston for gas and 1 air motor slide vane. Some air cars used pistons so they can allways lie and say it was a print mistake.
i fixed the 1787 Cooke slide vane steam engine. It and the whale engine biulds lpe.
You saw the air motor page of the nano. It funny you never mentioned the air motor at the bottom of the page. I posted the nano air motor slide vane cooke motor. the nano uses the cooke slide vane rotor of 1787
I posted it ,,you never looked at the bottom of the page. it was the first one posted.
I allso posted another homemade slide vane rotor air motor in the last few post.
His rotor sucks but the math on it dont. They are all so primitive and green.
FOR 4 years YOU have ignored the 1787 Cooke slide vane steam engine. That was the first car that had any balls. And it was the first ship engine. factories used a nationalist method. Pure racsist nationalisem prevented it from getting past the boarder. The piston steam engine was due the fact an englsih idia was better then a pollish idia . They ignored the Cooke motor for 100 years wile cooke's motor ran 100 years.
This engine, with its interesting semi-circular format, is the earliest rotary steam engine known, apart from those of Watt [ above ]. Patented by James Cooke in 1787.
[ in Cooke1A.GIF, above ] b is the steam inlet from the boiler, and a is the exhaust to the condenser.
As the wheel rotates the flaps c fall forward by gravity and are then kept in place by the steam pressure pushing the wheel round. The connecting rod d is driven by a crank on the engine axle and works the condenser air-pump.
The wheel is only enclosed up to the line f, and one can only guess what sealing system was planned to keep the long line contacts steam-tight.
Elijah Galloway says: The construction of this machine, we need hardly say, ► would be impractical. ; and one can hardly disagree.
The original drawing and description are found in Transactions of The Royal Irish Academy for 1787.
With water . The A tank is full of water as steam at 650 psi is injected into the tank. The exit water fills the next cylinder tank . Just the top 1/14 th is filled at 650 psi steam. Then the steam takes a stroke. O2 can be injected and will double the steam.
english ,,,like pistons becasue its english. irish man biulds steam svr and english wount even look at it.
Its against the law to biuld a svr steam engine. The math on it .... 1797 till now 200 fucking years and no svr math ?????? good math or bad ,,,ok but whats up with NO math ? IF GM handed over the math on svr they would have to biuld them. GM are too brain dead to do the math on lpe.
they all do. The pump that makes the trans work is a slide vane motor. The air condioonner is another. The hoist in the garage is another. A slide vane air compresor is another but can be screw or piston .
Slde vane steam engine in usa was outlawed because the oil co neaded protection. Then standard oil bought up the 6 locomotives and got rid of all traces of a usa svr. In 1904 if the svr biult a cheeper easyer engine that used steam then the oil co lost 90 % and the piston car makers steam or gas all get hurt. Its against the law .
On Feb 10, 11:58 am, GravityPhys...@webtv.net (tj Frazir) wrote:
> Thats a 10 hp 240 cfm air motor off the shelf for $ 2000 but they are > very crude.
There is so little math that goes into making cars, that most have one or more onboard computers today. That's because 70% of what appears to be math is just Political Conventions. And 90% of the rest is robots.