Re: Amazing New Air Car - It's NOT About the Air!
habshi
<sudde...@gmail.com> wrote:
And it's not even about the car!
Every now and then a an idea comes along that will change the world -
and gets mostly ignored. Some of you have heard me talking about this
new air powered car from MDI (Moteur Developpment International) in
France which is now to be manufactured by Tata Motors of India.
MDI did a press release a few weeks back and it was handled like,
well, another press release. The automotive press paraphrased a few
paragraphs, but I wonder if they actually THOUGHT ABOUT what they
wrote?
And when Tata Motors introduced their more conventional yet
inexpensive Nano at the Detroit Auto Show last week, it got amazing
coverage, but not ONE mention of this new air car to be manufactured
by the very SAME company!
The highly touted Tata Nano is a cute little bug that will get more
than 50 MPG - cool. But the MDI OneCat which is about the same size
will go more than 20 TIMES farther on the same gallon of fuel! Did no
one actually READ the spec sheet on the OneCAT?
To be fair, the objective of the Nano is low price, not mileage. And
the OneCat is much lighter, which helps, but surprisingly, that's not
the key to it's mileage advantage. Here's how they do it...
As almost everyone knows, the standard internal combustion engine is
only about 30% efficient under the very best of conditions. This means
70% of the energy in a gallon of gasoline leaves the car as wasted
heat.
The only heat that produces power is that narrow band of highest
temperature that causes rapid expansion of air when the spark plug
fires. Once the piston reaches the bottom of it's cycle, all the lower
temperature energy from that cycle is wasted and must be pumped out
the exhaust pipe.
If you add MORE heat at the point of ignition (higher octane), you get
more power. But Newton and his second law of thermodynamics limits us
from using any of the heat BELOW the temperature of ignition. THAT is
the primary reason for the inefficiency of the internal combustion
engine. But what if we COULD use ALL of that heat?
CAT - Compressed Air Technology
Guy Negre of Formula 1 fame and his company, Moteur Developpment
International have spent the last 14 years developing a new type of
engine for automobiles.
Compressed Air Technology has been described as using air as fuel, but
that's not quite right. The air works more like a battery. It actually
uses a carbon-fiber air tank with up to 300 times normal atmospheric
pressure driving a piston to give the car a range of 100 Km. You can
think of this system as a standard compressor motor and air tank -
except it's running backwards. The air tank drives the compressor,
instead of the other way around.
So far, no big deal. Any advantage is a matter of strength, weight and
volume per unit of energy stored in the "battery" - the carbon-fiber
tanks helps some. But if a short range compressed air car is all they
had, it wouldn't be very impressive. The next detail is the key. When
you think about it, you'll discover it's the biggest advancement in
thermal energy extraction since the invention of the Otto-cycle in
1860! It effectively uses "wasted heat".
Bi-Energy Breakthrough
Guy Negre's brilliant innovation is to add a small fuel burner between
the air tank and the motor. The heat from this burner extends the
range for the compressed air tank by increasing the pressure of the
air even more on it's way to the motor. Properly insulated, this
burner could approach 100% conversion efficiency of the burned fuel.
Here's the reason...
Small amounts of heat are not enough to turn over a reciprocating
motor. But when you add a compressed air tank, it provides a pressure
bias great enough to drive the motor on it's own. Now add the burner.
Per the gas laws, the pressure increase is proportional to the heat
added - it doesn't require a critical temperature of ignition! You
could run it tepid or boiling - ANY heat adds power. It's just a
matter of how much.
If you double the burn rate, you'll double the added expansion. Since
there's no point of ignition, there's no critical temperature before
this energy is extracted. ANY heat added by a burner (or other source)
will simply add proportional expansion and energy extraction.
Theoretically, most of the energy from a gallon of gasoline (or stack
of firewood) could be used to drive the motor.
Check the spec sheet above. I assume these are actual measurements.
The OneCAT will go 100 Km on air alone, but another 700 Km on only 1.5
liters of fuel! That works out to almost 1100 MPG!
More Than JUST an Amazing New Car
MDI has a good chance of creating an amazingly efficient little car,
and that's cool. But what's REALLY exciting are all the other
potential industrial applications.
Considering generation and line losses when producing electricity, it
may even now be more efficient to run Bi-Energy motors at the site of
the application instead of buying electricity. Or we could boost power
from solar heating. Or hot sewer water for that matter! ANY source of
heat could be used. It's just a matter of degree and effectiveness.
Any of a thousand sources of wasted heat can now be used.
OK. You'll still need electricity to provide the compressed air bias,
but the rest of the energy would be more efficiently extracted - the
hotter, the better. What about recycling the heat from air
conditioners to drive their OWN motors? I'm not talking about
perpetual motion here. There's no free ride. It's just that the heat
is no longer has to be totally wasted. This approach provides an
excellent possibility of dramatically increased efficiency in anything
that needs a rotating motor and has wasted heat available. (Note - MDI
was WAY ahead of me - I just found this link on their site... Further
Applications - WOW!)
These ideas are worth more than just a press release. We need a new
college of engineering at every university!
It's a whole new way of thinking about energy!
Sudden Disruption
--
http://suddendisruption.blogspot.com
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 18:55:12 -0800 (PST), Sudden Disruption
> <sudde...@gmail.com> wrote:
> And it's not even about the car!
> Every now and then a an idea comes along that will change the world -
> and gets mostly ignored. Some of you have heard me talking about this
> new air powered car from MDI (Moteur Developpment International) in
> France which is now to be manufactured by Tata Motors of India.
My guess is Tata Motors will go tata's up on this one.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
Duatcher
"habshi" <hab...@anony.com> wrote in message
news:4799243d...@news.clara.net...
> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 18:55:12 -0800 (PST), Sudden Disruption
> <sudde...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> CAT - Compressed Air Technology
>
4,500 PSI tank with a flame on it ? It will go some where fast.
Sudden Disruption
I'll play it straight in hopes someone with the right background
happens along.
> How abour providing ANY plausible evidence it will EVER be manufactured ?
14 years in development, multiple evolving multi-stage versions of the
air motor, video of operating prototypes, a contract to manufacture
with an operating car company. What do you need just to consider the
technology?
Does someone have to park one in your driveway?
> It's a complete waste of time. It's scientifically idiotic.
Why exactly? You sound like you might be an expert on what is
idiotic.
> 4,500 PSI tank with a flame on it ? It will go some where fast.
Now that WOULD be silly. The burner is just before the decompression
stage where it does the most good. And if I remember the gas laws
from chemistry correctly, pressure is proportional to temperature, and
in this case pressure produces rotation which is the definition of an
external combustion engine. In some ways it's not that different from
a steam engine. It just uses nitrogen and oxygen instead of water
vapor. Why is this so difficult to understand?
I admit it. I'm not an expert with this. So I'm asking, where is the
hole in their logic.
What's wrong with their spec sheet?
Are these prototypes an illusion?
Eeyore
Sudden Disruption wrote:
> I thought I would find a bit more rational feedback here. Oh well.
> I'll play it straight in hopes someone with the right background
> happens along.
>
> > How abour providing ANY plausible evidence it will EVER be manufactured ?
>
> 14 years in development, multiple evolving multi-stage versions of the
> air motor, video of operating prototypes, a contract to manufacture
> with an operating car company.
Indeed. A history of FAILURE.
The basic science is all that's needed to show that an 'air motor' is a stupid
idea.
Graham
notto...@hotmail.com
On Jan 25, 12:50 pm, hab...@anony.com (habshi) wrote:
> If you add MORE heat at the point of ignition (higher octane), you get
> more power. But Newton and his second law of thermodynamics limits us
> from using any of the heat BELOW the temperature of ignition. THAT is
Says who? There are plenty of Sterling cycle engines which run at
temperature differences of tens of degrees or less. They are very
inefficient but can generate power. In practice car engine efficiency
is limited by the ability of materials to withstand high temperatures.
We're miles away from the theoretical Carnot efficieny.
> Check the spec sheet above. I assume these are actual measurements.
> The OneCAT will go 100 Km on air alone, but another 700 Km on only 1.5
> liters of fuel! That works out to almost 1100 MPG!
It does appear to imply that, but in fact only says it uses 1.5l of
petrol, which is meaningless without a distance.
> ANY heat added by a burner (or other source)
> will simply add proportional expansion and energy extraction.
> Theoretically, most of the energy from a gallon of gasoline (or stack
> of firewood) could be used to drive the motor.
You're saying it violates the 2nd law:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html#c1
This is just as unlikely as a perpetual motion machine.
> These ideas are worth more than just a press release. We need a new
> college of engineering at every university!
I can't see any concept here that wouldn't have been thought of 200
years ago when people were struggling to get the most efficiency from
their heat engines. They're not proposing ceramic cylinders or fancy
fuels, or even new science. Just bog standard expansion of hot gasses
and bog standard compressed air, the same as is used in industry every
day.
The Ghost In The Machine
<hab...@anony.com>
wrote
on Thu, 24 Jan 2008 23:50:43 GMT
<4799243d...@news.clara.net>:
> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 18:55:12 -0800 (PST), Sudden Disruption
> <sudde...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> And it's not even about the car!
This might be good for the Indians -- the general issue
is that it gets very hot down there, and a tank full of
compressed air will inherently chill down.
However, let's look at the problem from an energy density
perspective.
Take a 15 gallon tank. Gasoline has a density of about
130 MJ/gallon. That tank therefore contains almost 2 GJ.
Pure ethanol runs 24 MJ/liter; one gets 1.36 GJ for that tank,
plus some unwanted extras if one accidentally introduces water
(ethanol is hydrophilic; gasoline hydrophobic).
Liquid hydrogen is 10.1 MJ/liter -- 0.57 GJ for that tank,
and some complicated engineering to keep it from evaporating
and exploding. (Research is in progress, AIUI.)
Anthracite coal is 72.4 MJ/liter, which would actually
make for a fair amount of efficiency except that most
fuel systems don't handle solids very well, even sinterized
ones. :-) That gives 4.11 GJ for the tank.
I won't bother with uranium.
Compressed air at 300 bar is given at 140 kJ/liter, or
0.008 GJ for that tank. (300 bar = 4351 psi.) As a check,
one can compute the amount of energy pushing a piston
of area 1 m^2 from a position of 17 meters out to 0.05678 meters out
(since 15 gal = 0.05678m^3). That's
integral(x = 0.05678 to 17) (PV/x dx)
(remember that I'm assuming a 1 m^2 piston face here; therefore,
numerically, pressure is force and displacement is volume), or
(101350 Pa * 17 m) * (log 17 - log 0.05678)
= 9.824 MJ
but this is a trifle optimistic because of the aforementioned cooling of
the air, which I'm not sure how to calculate properly.
Just to be silly, if one takes that 15 gallons of 300 bar
air (at 20 C or 293 K), one gets a mass of (PV/RT)
= (101325 * 300 Pascal) * (0.05678 m^3) / (8.314472 J/mol K * 293 K)
= 708 mols or 20.5 kg (at 0.029 kg/mol). Liquefy that, and one gets
25 liters or 6.6 gallons of liquid air (assuming 0.8 kg/liter). This
suggests a relatively easy way to fill up that tank but there is
the issue that one still has to boil the air somehow; ambient air,
even on a hot summer day, can only carry so much heat in per hour.
[rest snipped]
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Windows Vista. Because it's time to refresh your hardware. Trust us.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
gdew...@gmail.com
> My guess is Tata Motors will go tata's up on this one.
>
That's called wishful thinking.
But you could try again and create some functional disinformation?
Here is one fact:
The Tata Nano will sell for $2,500
How debunk it?
gdew...@gmail.com
This posting smells like disinformation.
It's either that or the author assumes a top engineer to spend 14
years at making nonsense constructions.
gdew...@gmail.com
wrote:
> [snip]
Ahhh, the real disinformation brigade has arrived.
Lets see what interesting postings my rabbit friend has dug up for me.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.pyrotechnics/browse_frm/thread/5d02564d3d744c4b/be07057bc5b7089a?hl=en&lnk=st&q=tata#be07057bc5b7089a
Tata introduces 50mpg car, environmentalists upset. - rec.pyrotechnics
http://groups.google.com/group/uk.rec.cars.misc/browse_frm/thread/6360298491a485a6/3ff972015ee84608?hl=en&lnk=st&q=tata#3ff972015ee84608
Tata named favourite for Jaguar and Land Rover - uk.rec.cars.misc
AND.....
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.energy.renewable/browse_frm/thread/39ba4a9dabc7ffb3/04dbc8690c828b10?hl=en&lnk=st&q=tata#04dbc8690c828b10
The AirCar again - alt.energy.renewable
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.energy.renewable/browse_frm/thread/9c40d9b1adb7eae5/0ea4a43ec7dbe634?hl=en&lnk=st&q=mdi#0ea4a43ec7dbe634
air car - alt.energy.renewable
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.design/browse_frm/thread/2bfee708dee351b9/b820aae98a06a367?hl=en&lnk=st&q=mdi#b820aae98a06a367
The Electric Car - sci.electronics.design
How interesting Graham !
On Aug 7 2007, 9:07 pm, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> TheMDIair car ?
>
> It exists after a fashion but it's still not in production. I doubt it ever will
> be, it has no really useful range and doesn't go very fast. I assume you bring a
> paraffin heater with you to keep it warm in winter.
>
> Graham
quote teh rabbit friend relation:
"it has no really useful range"
HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA
Keep trying, I bet one day you will really disinform some one.
No it wont obviously be me. huhuhuuhuhuh
You don't have the millage for that.
gdew...@gmail.com
> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 18:55:12 -0800 (PST), Sudden Disruption
>
It's really a neat trick.
Still I think the external combustion engine does about the same
thing. A steam gasoline hybrid can also do over 1000 km on a liter.
But neither as as light as an empty tank. o_O
He could add a rotary engine in stead of that piston crap. lol
I was thinking/guessing.... letting air out of it the compressed air
tank will cool the tank. So, the compressed air will be really cold
when it goes into the heater?
ya, that's very hip tech.
Not as good as my car design but hey, it's being produced, that seems
to be the miracle here.
^_^
Eeyore
"gdew...@gmail.com" wrote:
> On Jan 25, 6:34 am, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> > [snip]
>
> Ahhh, the real disinformation brigade has arrived.
You seem to have that the wrong way round.
Graham
Eeyore
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> This might be good for the Indians -- the general issue
> is that it gets very hot down there, and a tank full of
> compressed air will inherently chill down.
Uh ?
BobG
the same units... KWhr per mile and $$ per mile. I think we can assume
the KWhr per mile for similar size and weight cars will be the same,
so the comparison is based on fuel cost. The compressor that fills up
that carbon fiber tank to 300 bar probably uses 10hp for several
minutes... And the biggest waste is all the energy wasted heating up
that compressed air that just floats off into space. As the air in the
tank is used, the pressure drops, and the tank gets colder, reducing
the pressure and the efficiency even more.
The Ghost In The Machine
<rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com>
wrote
on Fri, 25 Jan 2008 08:45:55 +0000
<4799A1C3...@hotmail.com>:
It's the basis for all air conditioners and freezers, after all:
[1] Compress fluid (adiabatic compression).
[2] Hot fluid is cooled in external loop.
[3] Expand fluid (adiabatic expansion).
[4] Cold fluid takes heat from controlled area, heating up.
Granted, most fluids we use in air conditioners and
freezers change phase during the temperature changes, which
brings the heat of vaporization into the mix and making
things more efficient...but if one blows on one's hand
with one's mouth wide open, then blows on one's hand with
one's lips pursed, one can perceive a clear difference.
If the exhaust is thermally coupled back to the car --
not hard to do since there's presumably a muffler or at
least some piping -- the coupling will cool down; this is
stage [3] in the loop above. There's a design somewhere
that even takes advantage of this cooldown, feeding the
cold exhaust through a heat exchanger.
Still not all that useful as an actual power source, of course.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
/dev/brain: Permission denied
Evgenij Barsukov
>Check the spec sheet above. I assume these are actual measurements.
>The OneCAT will go 100 Km on air alone, but another 700 Km on only 1.5
>liters of fuel! That works out to almost 1100 MPG!
Compressed air powered cars are routinely used in japanies mines.
Yes, a heater can increase efficiency, although it is surprising that
it would be that much. In discussion of using compressed gas
as a back-up storage of energy, I have seen numbers of 40% overal
efficiency improvement for compressed gas / natural gas heater combo
feed into a turbine.
I think these are not real numbers but estimates done on a napkin,
and not a very clean one.
Anyway, if you consider the price of compressed gas (much more expensive
than gasoline), the combo is not economical in comparison with gasoline
alone.
You should calculate not MPG but MP$, and you will see that it is not
as impressive.
Regards,
Evgenij
Evgenij Barsukov
> Check the spec sheet above. I assume these are actual measurements.
> The OneCAT will go 100 Km on air alone, but another 700 Km on only 1.5
> liters of fuel! That works out to almost 1100 MPG!
You somewhat misunderstand the spec here:
http://www.theaircar.com/onecatsEN.html
When they say in Europe gas consumption in Liter, that means per 100 km.
So 1.5 L / 100 km, and so for another 700 km they will use
10.5 L.
It is still a great efficiency, but it is also a very little car.
Actually I find more impressive that they will be able to go 100km on
pressured air alone. Of cause this is a projection using some
futuristic ultra light / ultra high pressure gas tanks.
Their actual taxi prototype using normal (but rather above
average quality) steel tanks that you can buy with 200 liter / 200 bar
(~3000 psi) pressure only went 7.22 km.
In fact it is a hilarious example of power-point engineering how they
extrapolate from 7.22 km to 214 km they are planing to get:
http://www.theaircar.com/tests.html
Anyway, how much does it cost to recharge their existing tank,
that gets them to go 7.22 km (or, after all the improvements except
the tank change, using their own factor, to 55 km)?
Lets take an actually existing state of the art, suited to the task
compressor used to refill scuba-diving tanks.
http://www.deep-six.com/page21.htm
MaxAir 55 Standard can charge 80 cu ft to 3000 psi in 12 min.
So we have:
time = 12 min = 0.2hrs
power = 20.8A * 220V = 4.576kW
energy = 0.915 kWh
80 cu ft of uncompressed air that this cylinder holds, corresponds to
28.33 x 80 = 2266 liter
But 200 liter (compressed) / 200 bar cylinder corresponds to
197 times atmospheric pressure, so to convert to uncompressed air
V = 200 *197 = 39400 liter.
Which means, it is the same as 17.4 scuba tanks (Oh, btw
it will take it 12*17.4 = 208 minutes, or ~3 hrs to pump).
So our energy to pump it is 0.915 kWh * 17.4 = 15.92 kWh
Considering price per kWh of $0.1 that I pay,
it costs me $1.6.
And, let't remember, present prototype will drive me only to 7.22km
(4.5 miles) which is damn expensive.
Assuming $3/gallon gas prices, it converts to efficiency of 8.4 miles /
gallon. That sucks!
Now, we will be generous and assume that all the futuristic improvements
outlined by authors will work out and it will take me to 55km (34 miles)
on the same amount of pressurized air. That is much better, it
gives me equivalent of 63 miles / gallon.
But with a very small car (and only in the distant future
after uncertain improvements)! You already can get that same efficiency
with a normal gas motor with a similarly small car (Smart, or Honda
Insight).
Funny how things have a way to turn out not as exciting once you start
to crunch the numbers...
I wonder if Tata motors guys did this calculation...
Regards,
Evgenij
Sudden Disruption
> You're saying it violates the 2nd law:
There no perpetual motion machine here. I said it DOESN'T violate the
2nd law. It applies it!
Think of it this way. We have compressed air (at some useful
pressure) and at room temperature. The cooling effect (noted above)
doesn't occur until the gas expands, which is hopefully in the
cylinder creating mechanical energy.
Now what happens IF you add a modest amount of heat (from any source)
to the gas just BEFORE it enters the cylinder? Let's say the heat you
add is just enough so that the expanded exhaust comes out at exactly
room temperature. In that case, you get the energy from the
compressed gas but you ALSO get ALL of the energy from the heat you
added (minus mechanical and other losses). This is no magical
machine, but it CAN use heat below the temperature of ignition which
is MOST of the heat from burning fuel external OR internal.
But let's say you got that extra heat from your shower drain. All of
a sudden the "wasted" heat from your shower is converted into
mechanical force. that does NOT violate the 2nd law of
thermodynamics. It applies it.
> I can't see any concept here that wouldn't have been thought of 200
> years ago when people were struggling to get the most efficiency from
> their heat engines.
Ah... but they WEREN"T after efficiency per se. They were just trying
to make the damn things work at all. And when something worked at
all, they focused on it.
And they DID apply the concepts of an external combustion engine. It
was called a steam engine and worked quite well. It's just that
taking water to a vapor required they operate at higher temperatures
and pressures. To bad every one got distracted by Otto. We might
have very different cars today.
The difference with MDI is that they can operated at a much wider
range of temperatures and pressures and they ARE after efficiency. I
don't know if this will work as they say, but I DO see reasons to
consider it.
> They're not proposing ceramic cylinders or fancy fuels, or even new science.
True. This is the "Otto" distraction I spoke of where the objective
is higher octane and temperature. That is exactly my point. What
happens when we start thinking about extracting energy BELOW the
temperature of combustion? I think it's worth investigating.
Apparently, they do too unless this is just some elaborate investment
scheme.
> Just bog standard expansion of hot gasses and bog standard compressed
> air, the same as is used in industry every day.
EXACTLY! But this external combustion IS being applied in a way never
done before. At least to my knowledge. And that's exciting.
> When they say in Europe gas consumption in Liter, that means per 100 km.
The unit in the spec says Liters, not Liters per 100 Km, but I believe
you are correct both because of convention and it makes more sense for
a 900 lb car. I would have expected no more than a tripling of
efficiency. This means the mileage from the fuel component would be
157 MPG instead 1100 MPG. I will correct the error immediately.
Thank you.
> It is still a great efficiency, but it is also a very little car.
True. But then we should be able to get about 100 MPG for internal
combustion if the car stays under 1000 lbs. That's what the X-Prize
is all about. Time will tell.
> Funny how things have a way to turn out not as exciting once you start
> to crunch the numbers.
I think it's potentially QUITE exciting. My blog post was NOT about
the car as noted by the title. It's about taking a fresh look at
EXTERNAL combustion engines for all kinds of uses.
We need to think OUTSIDE the cylinder.
Thanks for the useful feedback, Evgnij.
Androcles
"Sudden Disruption" <sudde...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:29bcb910-10f0-474e...@x69g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
Bollocks. Wasted heat is wasted coal and wasted coal is wasted money.
Look up "company notch".
http://home.new.rr.com/trumpetb/loco/rodsr.html
Vince Morgan
> Now that WOULD be silly. The burner is just before the decompression
> stage where it does the most good. And if I remember the gas laws
> from chemistry correctly, pressure is proportional to temperature, and
freeze the motor if you don't add some heat from somewhere?
Sudden Disruption
> freeze the motor if you don't add some heat from somewhere?
Good observation. I now suspect this engine BECAME external
combustion as a defensive move, which would make the extended range
simply a very positive side effect.
I guess the need for cooling was the mother of this invention.
Sudden Disruption
http://suddendisruption.blogspot.com/
notto...@hotmail.com
> Now what happens IF you add a modest amount of heat (from any source)
> to the gas just BEFORE it enters the cylinder? Let's say the heat you
> add is just enough so that the expanded exhaust comes out at exactly
> room temperature. In that case, you get the energy from the
> compressed gas but you ALSO get ALL of the energy from the heat you
You don't get both. If the expanded compressed gas is colder, it won't
be able to expand as far, and won't be able to produce as much
mechanical energy.
You would have to heat it up just to recover all the compressed air
energy. That heating could be done free using ambient air after its
cooled, or could be done at cost by burning fuel before it cools. If
you do it the free way you can approach 100% efficiency, but that's
nothing special, a clockwork motor can approach 100% efficiency too.
Something special would be approaching 100% efficiency of a heat
engine, not a mechanically powered engine.
> > Funny how things have a way to turn out not as exciting once you start
> > to crunch the numbers.
>
> I think it's potentially QUITE exciting. My blog post was NOT about
> the car as noted by the title. It's about taking a fresh look at
> EXTERNAL combustion engines for all kinds of uses.
There are many people looking at many different kinds of engines for
many different uses. There are solar powered mechanical engines. There
are electric generators which use the wasted high-temperature heat
from gas water heaters. There is even an engine which can operate on
the heat from the palm of your hand! The more you see the less
exciting it gets.
tj Frazir
Address:http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.fuellessusa.com/105i01e.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.fuellessusa.com/AIR.html&start=6&h=220&w=400&sz=16&tbnid=schKjiBfWgOAGM:&tbnh=68&tbnw=124&hl=en&prev=/images%3Fq%3DAir%2BCar%2Bengine%26svnum%3D10%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26ie%3DUTF-8&um=1
Slide vane engines ..
SVSE sliding vane steam engines .
1904.
remeber you dumbfuckers...99 % of the reason you think im nutz is
because of the sliding vane engine you now all like.
remember its my 24 inch rotor with the inner cam wheel and spring
loaded vanes and brake shoe styal steam trap on the edge of the rotor is
still the boss ...with the steam head pulse of 1 second injections of
steam into the steam shoe.
You motherfuckers remeber and dont fucking forget ...I wrote the book on
the liquid piston slide vane steam engine.
Tata ..tao thia.
50 mllion sold ..1/2 of what i biuld is sold .
im make $ 1000 profit each.
biult 100 millon and aint ready to sell them all befor anyone knows
whats for sale.
befor anyone understands the sliding vane rotor evyone will own two.
You aint's seen nothin yet.
Google Image Result for http://www.fuellessusa.com/105i01e.jpg
Address:http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.fuellessusa.com/105i01e.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.fuellessusa.com/AIR.html&start=6&h=220&w=400&sz=16&tbnid=schKjiBfWgOAGM:&tbnh=68&tbnw=124&hl=en&prev=/images%3Fq%3DAir%2BCar%2Bengine%26svnum%3D10%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26ie%3DUTF-8&um=1
tj Frazir
is it works in a car under 1 ton.
The volume is square the mass of the car.
The size of the air can grows faster then the size of the car.
At 2 tons the car neads a can as big as it is .
At 3 tons the car neads a can twice as big as the car.
The single simple whale 2 engine .
50 million allready sold.
buy a steam compressor with it
tj Frazir
This is my first slide vane engine.
Sliding vane engine whale 4.
whale 6 is the 24 inch slide vane rotor with inner cam and valve spring
to hold the vanes in the rotor flush.
whale 7 is lpe whale 6 is steam whale 4 is air engine .
whales 1 2 3 dont have rotors.
they are water rockets // liquid pistons .
The steam pushes the water out of the cylinder as a stroke ,,like a jet
ski .
1 is air 2 is steam and 3 is O² boosted steam.
The o² boost it reused in the burner.
tj Frazir
h²0 into seperate containors.
it turns out that the emf method is better when i use the steam from a
vaccume wile i add a bit of heat so it dont freeze the water.
Once its vapoure the tv set removes an electron as the gasses re pumped
off the botom and top of an acumulator tank.
The emf seperation due electron bond of h²o is 10,000 times easyer as
a vacume gas.
Put steam under presure the method dont work easy.
Put the hydraelectroliis under presure it dont work at all.
Put the electrolisis in the vacume steam and it takes less volts to make
10 times as much seperate.
tj Frazir
tank.
no screen . a cathode tube instead.
the chamber isfull of steam vacume from flash steam water.
the hydraelectrolis is the same thing but the TV set is 40 watts and is
one nice electron gun.
point the tv set up ...chamber the screen so gas can flow onto the face
of the screen .
pull vacume threw screen chamber from top and bottom with H colection
vacume tube on the screen and the O colection tube 4 inches above the
screen.
The steam from vacume is allmost plazma .
the emf from the screens static charge dont have to pull as hard with
emf as water whith miles near
daestrom
> Much better comments this time around...
>
>> You're saying it violates the 2nd law:
>
> There no perpetual motion machine here. I said it DOESN'T violate the
> 2nd law. It applies it!
>
> Think of it this way. We have compressed air (at some useful
> pressure) and at room temperature. The cooling effect (noted above)
> doesn't occur until the gas expands, which is hopefully in the
> cylinder creating mechanical energy.
>
> Now what happens IF you add a modest amount of heat (from any source)
> to the gas just BEFORE it enters the cylinder? Let's say the heat you
> add is just enough so that the expanded exhaust comes out at exactly
> room temperature. In that case, you get the energy from the
> compressed gas but you ALSO get ALL of the energy from the heat you
> added (minus mechanical and other losses). This is no magical
> machine, but it CAN use heat below the temperature of ignition which
> is MOST of the heat from burning fuel external OR internal.
>
But you're applying your analysis to only 1/2 of the cycle. If you size
your air-heater just right, you can get the exhaust air to be right at
'ambient' temperature, that is true. But the other 1/2 of the cycle took
place in taking in the ambient air to a compressor and compressing it. As
it was compressed, it got pretty hot and air *coolers* were used to keep the
temperature in a range that wouldn't damage the compressor or other
components.
So from a thermodynamic heat-engine aspect, you have to account for that
heat that was rejected in the air coolers. The total heat in is from your
air-heater, the total work in (i.e. 'pumping power') is from the compressor
and the total heat out (if you get your exhaust temperature just right) is
at the inter- and after-coolers of the compressor and finally total work out
is air-motor shaft power.
daestrom
P.S. If you run your air-heater at higher power, you start to exhaust hot
air and have another loss.
tj Frazir
It takes too much energy to compress air.
10 % of that energy to make steam in a doble boiler.
Then recycled steam lets you haul less water and more fuel and less
parts.
Jeff☠Relf
Eric Gisse
> Do your engines show up on the web anywhere, T.J. ?
No, because they do not exist. Gullible fuck.
Jeff☠Relf
You ( Gisse ) are convinced that T.J.'s insane; again, so what ?
We both know he won't be showing us a working engine anytime soon,
so it doesn't really matter.
tj Frazir
I posted a slide vane engine cat called the tata nano .
Its a slide vane air engine and thats almost a slide vane steam engine.
Jeff☠Relf
not a “ sliding vane ” engine; besides, it's not a steam engine,
much less one with a Doble boiler.
tj Frazir
Your ignoring the slide vane air car !
And asking when you will see a slide vane engine ?
tj Frazir
Re: Amazing New Air Car - It's a sliding vane air engine
Group: sci.physics Date: Sat, Jan 26, 2008, 12:13pm From:
Gravity...@webtv.net (tj Frazir)
Jeff☠Relf
Re: This “ specially designed air motor ” with sliding vanes:
“ www.FuellessUSA.COM/105i01e.JPG ”;
shown at: “ www.FuellessUSA.COM/Air.HTML ”,
It says:
“ there are specially designed air motors being manufactured today
and used in many industrial applications. ”.
It's not part of the Tata Nano nor any other car; nor is it
a liquid piston sliding vane steam engine with a Doble boiler.
tj Frazir
tj Frazir
BradGuth
empg. I'd be impressed at 200 empg (not including the energy required
for filling that tank of compressed N2/O2).
Why not a tank of compressed O2? (because what good is compressed
N2?)
- Brad Guth
On Jan 24, 3:50 pm, hab...@anony.com (habshi) wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 18:55:12 -0800 (PST), Sudden Disruption
>
> <sudden....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> And it's not even about the car!
>
> Every now and then a an idea comes along that will change the world -
> and gets mostly ignored. Some of you have heard me talking about this
> new air powered car from MDI (Moteur Developpment International) in
> France which is now to be manufactured by Tata Motors of India.
>
> MDI did a press release a few weeks back and it was handled like,
> well, another press release. The automotive press paraphrased a few
> paragraphs, but I wonder if they actually THOUGHT ABOUT what they
> wrote?
>
> And when Tata Motors introduced their more conventional yet
> inexpensive Nano at the Detroit Auto Show last week, it got amazing
> coverage, but not ONE mention of this new air car to be manufactured
> by the very SAME company!
>
> The highly touted Tata Nano is a cute little bug that will get more
> than 50 MPG - cool. But the MDI OneCat which is about the same size
> will go more than 20 TIMES farther on the same gallon of fuel! Did no
> one actually READ the spec sheet on the OneCAT?
>
> To be fair, the objective of the Nano is low price, not mileage. And
> the OneCat is much lighter, which helps, but surprisingly, that's not
> the key to it's mileage advantage. Here's how they do it...
>
> As almost everyone knows, the standard internal combustion engine is
> only about 30% efficient under the very best of conditions. This means
> 70% of the energy in a gallon of gasoline leaves the car as wasted
> heat.
>
> The only heat that produces power is that narrow band of highest
> temperature that causes rapid expansion of air when the spark plug
> fires. Once the piston reaches the bottom of it's cycle, all the lower
> temperature energy from that cycle is wasted and must be pumped out
> the exhaust pipe.
>
> If you add MORE heat at the point of ignition (higher octane), you get
> more power. But Newton and his second law of thermodynamics limits us
> from using any of the heat BELOW the temperature of ignition. THAT is
> the primary reason for the inefficiency of the internal combustion
> engine. But what if we COULD use ALL of that heat?
>
> CAT - Compressed Air Technology
>
> Guy Negre of Formula 1 fame and his company, Moteur Developpment
> International have spent the last 14 years developing a new type of
> engine for automobiles.
>
> Compressed Air Technology has been described as using air as fuel, but
> that's not quite right. The air works more like a battery. It actually
> uses a carbon-fiber air tank with up to 300 times normal atmospheric
> pressure driving a piston to give the car a range of 100 Km. You can
> think of this system as a standard compressor motor and air tank -
> except it's running backwards. The air tank drives the compressor,
> instead of the other way around.
>
> So far, no big deal. Any advantage is a matter of strength, weight and
> volume per unit of energy stored in the "battery" - the carbon-fiber
> tanks helps some. But if a short range compressed air car is all they
> had, it wouldn't be very impressive. The next detail is the key. When
> you think about it, you'll discover it's the biggest advancement in
> thermal energy extraction since the invention of the Otto-cycle in
> 1860! It effectively uses "wasted heat".
>
> Bi-Energy Breakthrough
>
> Guy Negre's brilliant innovation is to add a small fuel burner between
> the air tank and the motor. The heat from this burner extends the
> range for the compressed air tank by increasing the pressure of the
> air even more on it's way to the motor. Properly insulated, this
> burner could approach 100% conversion efficiency of the burned fuel.
> Here's the reason...
>
> Small amounts of heat are not enough to turn over a reciprocating
> motor. But when you add a compressed air tank, it provides a pressure
> bias great enough to drive the motor on it's own. Now add the burner.
> Per the gas laws, the pressure increase is proportional to the heat
> added - it doesn't require a critical temperature of ignition! You
> could run it tepid or boiling - ANY heat adds power. It's just a
> matter of how much.
>
> If you double the burn rate, you'll double the added expansion. Since
> there's no point of ignition, there's no critical temperature before
> this energy is extracted. ANY heat added by a burner (or other source)
> will simply add proportional expansion and energy extraction.
> Theoretically, most of the energy from a gallon of gasoline (or stack
> of firewood) could be used to drive the motor.
>
> Check the spec sheet above. I assume these are actual measurements.
> The OneCAT will go 100 Km on air alone, but another 700 Km on only 1.5
> liters of fuel! That works out to almost 1100 MPG!
>
> More Than JUST an Amazing New Car
>
> MDI has a good chance of creating an amazingly efficient little car,
> and that's cool. But what's REALLY exciting are all the other
> potential industrial applications.
>
> Considering generation and line losses when producing electricity, it
> may even now be more efficient to run Bi-Energy motors at the site of
> the application instead of buying electricity. Or we could boost power
> from solar heating. Or hot sewer water for that matter! ANY source of
> heat could be used. It's just a matter of degree and effectiveness.
> Any of a thousand sources of wasted heat can now be used.
>
> OK. You'll still need electricity to provide the compressed air bias,
> but the rest of the energy would be more efficiently extracted - the
> hotter, the better. What about recycling the heat from air
> conditioners to drive their OWN motors? I'm not talking about
> perpetual motion here. There's no free ride. It's just that the heat
> is no longer has to be totally wasted. This approach provides an
> excellent possibility of dramatically increased efficiency in anything
> that needs a rotating motor and has wasted heat available. (Note - MDI
> was WAY ahead of me - I just found this link on their site... Further
> Applications - WOW!)
>
> These ideas are worth more than just a press release. We need a new
> college of engineering at every university!
>
> It's a whole new way of thinking about energy!
>
> Sudden Disruption
> --http://suddendisruption.blogspot.com
The Ghost In The Machine
<Jeff...@Yahoo.COM>
wrote
on 27 Jan 2008 19:11:04 GMT
<Jeff_Relf_2008_...@Cotse.NET>:
> Do your engines show up on the web anywhere, T.J. ?
>
A quickie Google on "liquid piston engine" coughed up
which among other things promises the user plans to "build
[an] amazing piston stirling engine from pipe fittings".
The most complex element in this engine is a pair of
one-way ball valves. (I for one am a bit dubious on
its actually functioning as advertised.)
Another, rather less practical, device is coughed up at
http://www.rotarystirlingengines.com/rotacola.htm
This unit reminds me of six soda cans on a wheel, but
the website has a picture, suggesting a somewhat working
(if slow) prototype.
is a third Google offering. This is a professional-looking
Website, with a request for a highly qualified senior
mechanical engineer.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Useless C++ Programming Idea #889123:
std::vector<...> v; for(int i = 0; i < v.size(); i++) v.erase(v.begin() + i);
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Roger Thorpe
or Gas Turbine. Look either of those up on Wkipedia.
Roger
BradGuth
Of what you're talking about is essentially an efficient one cycle
internal combustion engine.
Imagine what burning h2o2 plus a little of whatever fossil/synfuel
will accomplish in a one cycle combustion process, except with such
having contributed the absolute minimal CO2 and zero NOx per passenger
mile. 200 empg of fossil/synfuel shouldn't be any problem for the GM
Volt (at 5 passengers, that's 1000 pmpg).
- Brad Guth
Jeff☠Relf
“ http://WikiPedia.ORG/wiki/Fluidyne ”.
A Solar-Powered Fluidyne ( Fluid Piston Stirling Cycle Engine )
is mentioned here: “ www.IEdu.COM/DeSoto/Stirling/Dyne.html ”.
But we don't see this, nor Doble boilers, at the local car dealership.
Jeff☠Relf
“ www.FuellessUSA.COM/Air.HTML ”.
But I haven't seen a car that uses sliding vanes,
liquid pistons ( a.k.a. a Fluid Piston Stirling Cycle Engine )
or a Doble bioler.
Gasoline, Diesel, natural gas, and electricity are readily available;
other fuels aren't so accessible.
tj Frazir
The slide vane engine is no sterling .
4 cylinders 40 inch tall 4 inch wide .
each has a flap that lets water in the side and a flap at the bottom to
let water out like reed valves. 4 inch flaps.
The water flows in and fills the cylinder ..
650 psi steam 1/10 of the top of the cylinder full of steam ,,steeam
valve shuts.
The water is pushed out the bottom.
............. The water from the cylinders runs into the tank bottom
and the water level rise compresses the air in the top of the tank like
a spring . The tanks water runs a slide vane rotor .
The slide vane rotor is 10 % the steam volume of a piston steam engine
or your car.
10 % the steam is 1200 cubic inch second .
a V8 350 ci is 13000 cubic inch power stroke per second. A 400 ci steam
engine is 12000 cubic inch steam per second at 650 psi.
2 inch of vane out of a 24 inch rotor with 650 psi is 500 rpm 1200
cubic inch second.
1300 foot pounds tourk.
No trans,,
the air car is the steam slide vane eng without the steam .
Its the whale 4 .
whale 7 is by far better.
tj Frazir
.scrole down the page.
It has the tank specs ,,you will find that air is equal the amount of
steam !!!!!!!
Suply that air car with the slide vane engine with steam .
Convert the air car with a steamer and its the same amount of steam as
it was air.
The slide vane air engine NOT the piston air engine .
The steam to drive thier small mini slide vane rotor is 10 % of a
piston.
515 mpg.
tj Frazir
Liquid postons are water rockets when used without a rotor .
The bottom flap is gone and a jet is in place .
The side intake flap lets water fill the cylinder .
Steam pushes the water out of the cylinder .
The water comes out the jet .
The adavntage is the fact the steam was not conveted from thrust to
rotoation and back to mechanical thrust . No conversion no loss.
The potenual enegy was not converted .
100 % of the steams potenual energy pushed the ship. If it ran a
turbing a piston steam eng then it would have waisted 40 % of the stroke
and 60 % would be converted to rotation with a crank and then the
propeller would convert the rotatin back into thrust. With a large
energy loss each time it converted the energy.
Another adavntage is ,,there is no piston no crank , its cheep to biuld
and cheepest to run.
and above all i can get 10 times the power in the engineroom and use
1/22 the fuel.
tj Frazir
The steam forced the water out of the cylinder and out the jet .
1/8 the fuel as a ship with a diesel.
1/22 the fuel of a outboard motor.
tj Frazir
engine .
tj Frazir
http://www.tpub.com/content/engine/14105/img/14105_161_2.jpg
Address:http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.tpub.com/content/engine/14105/img/14105_161_2.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.tpub.com/content/engine/14105/css/14105_161.htm&start=1&h=279&w=336&sz=13&tbnid=5PaqT-ELd1PZ4M:&tbnh=99&tbnw=119&hl=en&prev=/images%3Fq%3D%2Bair%2Bengine%2B%2Bvanes%26svnum%3D10%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26ie%3DUTF-8&um=1
10 hp slide vane air motor off the shelf is 23 cfm 100 psi.
BUT at 650 psi its still 23 cfm.
Its 48 hp at 650 psi 23 cfm.
48 hp steam piston engine is 230 cfm.
tj Frazir
oil paid for and got rid of it.
Thats a air motor ,,a host ,,a rachet..
an air compresor ,,,your car has a slide vane oil pump.
24 inch rotor 2 inch wide with 1 inch of vane out is 2 square inch
vane .
2 inch x 70 inch 140 cubic inch per revolution.
650 psi steam is 1300 pounds at 12 inch r.
Jeff☠Relf
I don't see water-rocket liquid pistons in cars or ships,
this tells me more than your numbers do, T.J.
Jeff☠Relf
getting 10 times the power and consuming 1/22 nd the fuel,
how come you're the only one on the net talking about it ?
tj Frazir
stroke.
650 psi out a 1 inch jet is 650 pound thrust.
650 pound thrust is a 75 cubic inch piston 2 stroke at 5000 rpm.
375000 cubic inch minut 6250 cubic inch power stroke second.
6250 power stroke second // vers // 480 cubic inch steam strokeper
second liquid piston.
10 to 1 easy.
12 to 1 maybe.
the ships big cylinder is better.
Jeff☠Relf
“ water rocket ” technology, T.J.
You'd have us believe that Standard Oil ( or some such )
could completely silence all discussion of the topic ( except here ).
It makes you look insane.
Eric Gisse
[...]
> It makes you look insane.
C'mon ... c'mon...
Randy Poe
It's so cute when you pretend to be skeptical of TJ.
We all know where this is going to end after
a few days.
- Randy
Jeff☠Relf
still, T.J.'s talk of getting 10 times the power
at one twenty sencond the price appears to be a grandiose fantasy.
How come he, and no one else, can do it ?
Is he better informed than the U.S. Department of Energy
( to say nothing of Russia, Europe, China, India, etc. ) ?
The mighty governments of this world can, and often do,
butt-fuck Jews and “ Big Business ” with a sandpaper dildo;
yet T.J. and Potter want us to believe that the opposite is true.
tj Frazir
1904 is a long time for the math on a slide vane steam engine to be
absent from all books.
Show any book on the panet with a slide vane steam engine .
Never mind your hoist is an air slide vane engine. Dont pay any
attention to a off the shelf air slde vane engine 10 hp for $ 1000 is
240 cfm at 100 psi. Its says so on the tag.
unless they are air engines and evryone converts them to steam instead
of spending money on compressors .
tj Frazir
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.
And the water rocket steam ship engine dont have parts to bust.
Its cleaner ..faster lighterr cheeper easyer.
tj Frazir
full of water.
3/8 X 80 psi 1.3 second stroke.
tj Frazir
So are jet skies.
Rockets ..on line.
Biulding steam power water rocket cylinders is brilliant because the
thrust is never converted to mechanical rotation.
In fact its so simple to produce 650 pound thrust with a steam water
rocket and so cheep its a wonder outboard engines even exsist.
v8 350 alu small block is 1200 pound thrust at 5000 rpm..
1 cylinder fire evry second to produce 650 pound thrust.
1000 pound thust steam pistonengine is 12000 cubic inch second at 650
psi..in a 400 cid steam engine at 2000 pm.
Or 2 cylinders fire 40 inch stroke evry second.
The 1 second steam stroke winns.
Outboards and inboards are stupid.
tj Frazir
Compressed air is ok but steam has more range then the jet ski.
Its brainless whale 2 engine.
It has no sencors ,,it just fires 1 cylinder evry second and then the
next ready or not.
The jet ski is 1/30 TH a doble boiler.
1 cubic foot per second is just 60 cfm.
The jet ski is less then 60 cfm at 650 pound thrust.
It cant over rev ,,retard the stroke by closing the ball valve at the
jet nosel .
It cant hurt its self .
not much to it.
tj Frazir
36 x 120 inch stroke.
It idols at 20 rpm. Its a crank with a prop on the end of it and has no
gears to waist fuel on.
its the most effective stroke they could biuld.
But I biult a much much better stroke because i dont convert it to
rotation with a crank.
The crank is about 80 % waisted energy.
The water rocket steam engine dont waist 80 %. It dont have pistons and
a crank and a machanical prop that wait energy because its not very
effective,
1 stroke 4 inch boar at 500 psi is about 5000 pounds of thrust strait
out a 4 inch nosel but the 1 second stroke is 6 feet tall 4 inch
cylinder.
thats a steam cannon.
tj Frazir
Run it at 5000 rpm ..
Thats 10,000 power strokes a minut .
Ill use the same fuel per power stroke.
The same cylinder boar but 40 inch long so no matter how far 1 second it
its got enouph cylinder.
Ill have more thrust firing 1 per second and use the same fuel per
stroke.
60 strokes per minute vrs 5000 strokes.
100 to 1 ...
tj Frazir
rotation.
Blast the stroke into a tank as it pushes water level up against the
air in the tank and I can use that to run a slide vane engine.
Its a potentual energy law.
The piston in the car converts thrust into rotation but the liquid
piston convets the rust to potanual energy thus not waisting very much
energy.
99 % of that drives the slide vane
tj Frazir
A diesel at 100 rpm still has a stroke too short.
But 100 % of the potentual will push the flap open into the tank. No
matter what the psi of the tank is.
You cant blast the water and not transfer all thhe energy to the tank.
The only way you can waist any energy is if you dont bang the cylinder
psi up nouph to open the flap into the tank.
face the fact...the liquid piston rocks.
Hot corn oil express ...chung weeeeeeeee..
tata tao nano
50,000,000 sold in 60 days .
tj Frazir
Re: T.J., it makes you look insane.
Group: sci.physics Date: Thu, Jan 31, 2008, 11:37pm From:
Gravity...@webtv.net (tj Frazir)
....................................................
want tat in cubic inch second ?
Its still near 100 to 1.
What if i said the water rocket steam engine was 22 to 1 to a ship
engine ?
A train engine 22 to 1 with a slide vane.
without conveting it to roatation and not having the energy loss till
after its potentual energy in the tank.
The better the insulation of the tank the less energy is lost from the
tank as potenutal energy.
So run a water rocket to pump a tank up to run a slide vanee eng to put
the exit water back to the inlet cylinder and resuse the water hot
without cooling it.
wile the steam drives it and o2 in is optional .
without O2 ill run 1 stroke to your 100 .
Then to make that 5 times stronger ill add o2 1/50 sec after i load the
head of the cylinder with steam.
Then its one strong ass bitch.
2000 psi . 260 cfm 1 inch vane is 2000 foot pounds at 500 rpm.
tj Frazir
on air because the govs cant regulate air.
The convert it with aftermarket mini doble boiler .
100 % automated steamer.
instant gone ..conect steamer t air tank and drive on .
$ 20 month for a car payment.
tj Frazir
coffee maker on steroids.
Jeff☠Relf
Why does it use a two-cylinder engine, instead of a sliding vane ?
Where are the after-market Dobles ?
Will there be a “ water rocket ” piston option ?
Randy Poe
> You had something to do with the Tata Nano, T.J. ?
There ya go. I knew you couldn't maintain the skeptical
pose for long. I'm proud of you.
- Randy
P.S. TJ also invented water. And the question mark.
tj Frazir
cylinder >.*4 is 100 power strokes a second .
The SAME cylnder boar 4 feet long with a open out flap at the end is 1
stroke per second.
The same fuel ran each stroke.
Re: T.J., it makes evrything else insane
Group: sci.physics Date: Fri, Feb 1, 2008, 5:10pm From:
Gravity...@webtv.net (tj Frazir)
Re: T.J., it makes you look insane.
Group: sci.physics Date: Thu, Jan 31, 2008, 11:37pm From:
Gravity...@webtv.net (tj Frazir)
Drop a 4 cylinder car eng in boat.
Run it at 5000 rpm ..
Thats 10,000 power strokes a minut .
Ill use the same fuel per power stroke. The same cylinder boar but
40 inch long so no matter how far 1 second it its got enouph cylinder.
Ill have more thrust firing 1 per second and use the same
fuel per stroke.
60 strokes per minute vrs 5000 strokes.
100 to 1 ...
.............................................
tj Frazir
Thats a air engine ,,a slide vane air engine.
Its simple to convert that 260 cfm air engine to a 260 cfm steam engine.
Its 100 psi air engine but is biult to take 650 psi steam.
50,000,000 sold ...and the car can be thrown away if you take out the
rear drive train ad drop the air engine in your car and replace your
engine with a mini doble automatic.
It will step around the fed block on the slide vane steam engine.
They dont regulate air engines.
tj Frazir
8 - gizmag Image Gallery
Address:http://www.gizmag.com/go/3185/picture/6137/
Its primitive ..very primitive .
BUT the man has some math and his air syeam engine looks likeit will
rock ...im shure its better then the engine he removed.
Its not as good as my first svr.
tj Frazir
Address:http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.kuken.co.jp/haikiE.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.kuken.co.jp/Knowledge%2520of%2520wrench.htm&start=14&h=1196&w=1122&sz=237&tbnid=houB5A8xB9UOiM:&tbnh=150&tbnw=141&hl=en&prev=/images%3Fq%3D%2Bair%2Bmotor%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26ie%3DUTF-8&um=1
Another crude air motor.
Its crude but gets the job done.
Jeff☠Relf
The Tata nano, which isn't for sale yet, has a gasoline engine.
Tata plans a MiniCAT in 2009, but that uses pistons too.
Quoting the Toronto Sun ( January 23, 2008 ):
“ Compressed air pushes the engine's pistons ( as with many vehicles ) ”
-- http://TorontoSun.COM/Money/2008/01/23/pf-4788685.html
tj Frazir
Address:http://www.irtools.com/IS/product.aspx-en-4252
80 HP air motor . off the shelf will drive your ass around dirt cheep .
Use steam and steam lube and reuse boath.
Thats not a bad air motor but too high rpm.
Its a slide vane motor.
Evgenij Barsukov
> 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.
Regards,
Evgenij
tj Frazir
1787 Cooke biult his 800 hp ship engine.
It ran a saw for 100 years .
tj Frazir
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.
air engines used with liquid .
tj Frazir
Its new export new world market is new.
Tato is not new and the nano is not new.
1897 ,,tato is japs in china moved to idnia
Jeff☠Relf
The Tata Nano will have only a 2 piston gasoline engine;
and, come 2009, the Tata MiniCAT ( Air ) will only have pistons.
You ( T.J. ) told me:
“ That's disinformation because
the Feds will not allow a slide vane steam engine. ”.
Why ? because “ Big Oil ” won't allow it ?
The Feds can, and often have, stepped all over Big Oil.
You told me something like:
“ The air motor Nano has engines:
a piston engine for gasoline and a sliding vane air engine. ”.
What “ Air Motor Nano ” ?
The only CAT I've seen is Tata's MiniCAT, with pistons, not vanes.
And no one really knows if it'll actually hit the market or not.
You told me something like:
“ Some air cars falsely claim to be using pistons;
when caught, they pretend it was a print mistake. ”.
Are import restrictions on sliding vane engines
so tight that you have to smuggle them in like that ?
I doubt it.
tj Frazir
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
Jeff☠Relf
anything but a two piston internal combustion engine.
No mention of Air-anything.
Hell, it's not even for sale yet, you can't buy one.
The MiniCAT is another car, perhaps for sale next year,
but it too has only a piston engine, driven by compressed air.
The air motor you ( T.J. ) showed me had no reference to the Nano,
nor did it have a reference to any other car. Are you seeing things ?
You told me:
“ the nano uses the cooke slide vane rotor of 1787. ”.
Says you... and no one else.
tj Frazir
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.
tj Frazir
Address:http://www.britishempire.co.uk/timeline/18century.htm
Changed:3:33 PM on Wednesday, April 4, 2007
The slide vane rotor was a navel secret .
It can not be produced by law to potect the speed of sailing ships.
fuel dint matter. let the people use the piston and save fast for the
navy.
The cooke eng advantage over watts steam engine was and still is a
secret.
Jeff☠Relf
and never have I seen mention of a pistonless car or ship
propelled by external combustion, steam, or compressed air.
Tata's MiniCAT will use pistons ( if it ever gets produced ).
You claim pistonless rotary engines aren't used
due to nationalism and racism, but I highly doubt it.
Mazda's internal combustion rotary engine is pistonless.
James Cooke, 1787, was Irish, not Polish.
Here's a drawing of his “ Rotary Engine ”:
www.DSelf.DSL.PipeX.COM/Museum/Power/RotaryEngines/Cooke1A.GIF
Quoting Douglas Self:
“ 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.
From The History and Progress of the Steam Engine
by Elijah Galloway & Luke Hebert, London 1830. ”.
--
www.DSelf.DSL.PipeX.COM/Museum/Power/RotaryEngines/RotaryEng.HTM#cooke
tj Frazir
I posted it once too .
Thats not cooke engine.
he used slide vanes in a water wheel and a wheel water shoe.
Cooke biult a hydro.
He then used the slide vane with steam .
he filed a few trick pattents.
Trick patents hide some things .
tj Frazir
A air hoist is.
Air rachet might be.
liquid piston is 10 % the volume per second and 13 times the foot pound
tourk.
SVS slide vane steam engine is 1200 cubic inch second wile a 400 cid
steam engine is 12000 cubic inch second .
The break shoe steam ...and rotor with inner cam work .
Its so cheep and simple it would hurt your head.
tj Frazir
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.
but just steam...is 10 %.
tj Frazir
And the steam pultz injector into the shoe.
You cant see the flap vane cam wheel .
Yo dont know if it is water or steam .
This would work ok with a cam and water.
tj Frazir
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.
Where is YOUR lpe math ??
The first svr lpe is 200 years old.
Jeff☠Relf
and English nationalists outlawed pistonless steam engines.
Which car producer, anywhere on the planet,
makes pistonless steam engines ?
tj Frazir
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 .
tj Frazir
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 .
tj Frazir
very crude.
thats a 10 hp 240 cfm sv air motor.
10 cid gas engine 10 HP at 5000 rpm.
4 stroke so call it 1 fire per 2 rpm.
1000 X 10 cid ....10,000 ci pm. ,,is 820 cubic inch second.
But a 1 inch vane 24 inch rotor at 500 rpm is 71 hp and is 1200 cubic
inch second.
10hp 820 cis // vrs// 7.1 HP 120 cubic inch second.
zzbu...@netscape.net
> 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.
Jeff☠Relf
What's stopping Brazil from selling cars with pistonless steam engines ?
By “ engine ”, I mean “ the main power plant of a car ”,
not the car's air conditioner.