Steam powered aircraft
Greasy Rider
guy
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nw6NFmcnW-8
see also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerial_Steam_Carriage
Guy
Rob Arndt
http://discaircraft.greyfalcon.us/Huettner.htm
In the US Besler made a steam plane:
http://aerofiles.com/besler.jpg
http://aerofiles.com/besler-cloud.jpg
http://aerofiles.com/besler-rig.jpg
1933 = Travel Air 2000 with 150hp 2-cylinder Besler V-2 steam engine
(a converted switch-locomotive powerplant), totaled 650# with its
accessories, liquids, and boiler! William Besler; ff: 4/12/33. Then
the only airplane to fly under steam power [X4259], it flew about 30
minutes on 10 gallons of water; inexpensive fuel oil use for heating.
Operation was so quiet that a crowd of spectators and newsmen on the
ground could hear Beseler shout to them from 800'. Reversible prop
rotation allowed the plane to back up. Advantages of the "Besler
System" claimed at the time included elimination of audible noise and
destructive vibration, greater efficiency at low engine speeds and
also at high altitudes where lower air temperatures assisted
condensation, reduced likelihood of engine failure, reduced
maintenance and fuel costs—fuel oil was used in place of petrol,
reduced fire hazard since the fuel was less volatile and operating
temperatures were lower. and a lack of need for radio shielding. After
flight tests, Besler dropped the project for unknown reasons, perhaps
satisfied in merely proving his point. He also had a successful car so
equipped.
~ Aerofiles, Besler
Rob
Daryl Hunt
> This one remains an enigma:
> http://discaircraft.greyfalcon.us/Huettner.htm
And where you cut and pasted from. ARnt, try to steal less.
http://www.aqpl43.dsl.pipex.com/MUSEUM/TRANSPORT/steamplane/steamplane.htm
Paper idea, never finished. Unlike the Besler which really did fly.
Rob Arndt
> On 1/7/2011 10:21 AM, Rob Arndt wrote:
>
> > This one remains an enigma:
> >http://discaircraft.greyfalcon.us/Huettner.htm
>
>
> Paper idea, never finished. Unlike the Besler which really did fly.
>
>
>
>
>
> > In the US Besler made a steam plane:
> >http://aerofiles.com/besler.jpg
> >http://aerofiles.com/besler-cloud.jpg
> >http://aerofiles.com/besler-rig.jpg
>
> > 1933 = Travel Air 2000 with 150hp 2-cylinder Besler V-2 steam engine
> > (a converted switch-locomotive powerplant), totaled 650# with its
> > accessories, liquids, and boiler! William Besler; ff: 4/12/33. Then
> > the only airplane to fly under steam power [X4259], it flew about 30
> > minutes on 10 gallons of water; inexpensive fuel oil use for heating.
> > Operation was so quiet that a crowd of spectators and newsmen on the
> > ground could hear Beseler shout to them from 800'. Reversible prop
> > rotation allowed the plane to back up. Advantages of the "Besler
> > System" claimed at the time included elimination of audible noise and
> > destructive vibration, greater efficiency at low engine speeds and
> > also at high altitudes where lower air temperatures assisted
> > condensation, reduced likelihood of engine failure, reduced
> > maintenance and fuel costs fuel oil was used in place of petrol,
> > reduced fire hazard since the fuel was less volatile and operating
> > temperatures were lower. and a lack of need for radio shielding. After
> > flight tests, Besler dropped the project for unknown reasons, perhaps
> > satisfied in merely proving his point. He also had a successful car so
> > equipped.
>
> > ~ Aerofiles, Besler
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
It was printed from a news source and can be reproduced as in the very
first line, you idiot:
Details from The Daily Telegraph for April 16, 1934 as reproduced in
Steam Car Developments and Steam Aviation for June 1934:
Full credit to the original source, not various sites that also
reproduce that news article.
Rob
Daryl Hunt
You missed the whole point. On any picture (and it's clear you
weren't born yet) you put your name on them like they were your
own. These are way past the copyright times so there is nothing
anyone can do about it but it sure does look like plagurism to
most of us. Of course, not to Euno and yourself.
Schiffner
Old news, literally. I was hearing about steam power ac when vietnam
was still going and armstrong had just left the moon. Interesting
conversations at the small airports in Topeka, Witchataw <ptooie> and
around the area...dad and I was at most of those little airports back
then. Most concluded that there was no way that the shits in the FAA
would let you try to build one and because of that you'd never get to
work out power/weight issues much less saftey.
Keith Willshaw
"Rob Arndt" <teut...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1127bee9-aa8e-4b6c...@22g2000prx.googlegroups.com...
> This one remains an enigma:
> http://discaircraft.greyfalcon.us/Huettner.htm
The Huettner design is interesting because it integrated the
boiler and condenser in the casing of the steam turbine.
It was excessively complex however having the boiler rotate as well as
the turbine shaft. If nothing else this causes major problems
with sealing and connections without any obvious gain to
match. I am not surprised it was never built.
A more practical design was the Aero Turbines Ltd design of 1938
which seems to have made it as far as the test bench but with a
power to weight ratio of 2 lb / hp as compared to the 1 lb /hp
of conventional engines it was not going to make the cut.
> In the US Besler made a steam plane:
> http://aerofiles.com/besler.jpg
> http://aerofiles.com/besler-cloud.jpg
> http://aerofiles.com/besler-rig.jpg
> 1933 = Travel Air 2000 with 150hp 2-cylinder Besler V-2 steam engine
> (a converted switch-locomotive powerplant), totaled 650# with its
> accessories, liquids, and boiler!
Which tells you right there why it failed. A power to weight ratio
of 4 lbs/hp is markedly inferior to the gasoline engines of the
period.
The Wright R-790 weighed 520 lbs and put out 220 hp
The Wright R -975 weighed 675 lbs and put out 420 hp
Keith
Jim Wilkins
> ...>
> Which tells you right there why it failed. A power to weight ratio
> of 4 lbs/hp is markedly inferior to the gasoline engines of the
> period.
>
Designer Nathan Price then dropped the intermediate steam boiler and
tried sending the supercharged combustion gasses directly to the
turbine, IOW a jet, but his desire to match piston fuel efficiency
made the design much too complex for the technology of the 30's.
http://www.nicap.org/lockheedstarco.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_J37
An engineer from GE Lynn gave a talk on WW2 engine development at our
model engineering society and told us the jet was right on the edge of
impossible, and paced by materials science more than engine design.
jsw
Keith Willshaw
"Jim Wilkins" <kb1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8c495fef-6578-42a1...@z19g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> jsw
The first practical gas turbines were introduced by the Swiss company
Brown Boveri in the 1930's . For aircraft use the dvelopment of Nimonic
alloys and the Whittle engine went hand in hand.
Keith
Daryl Hunt
They have and still do make Gas Turbines for Boats and Locomotives.
They improved on a (oh lord, I can hear the two goosesteppers
winding up on this one) a 1909 german design. Holzwarth
gasturbine. Brown Boveri got ahold of a 1928 Holzwarth
gasturbine and made it into a commercial venture by improving on
it.
You can blame Brown Boveri for the demise of the Coal Fired Steam
Locos. Don't you just hate them already :)
Jim Wilkins
> On 1/8/2011 11:33 AM, Keith Willshaw wrote:
> > The first practical gas turbines were introduced by the Swiss company
> > Brown Boveri in the 1930's . For aircraft use the dvelopment of Nimonic
> > alloys and the Whittle engine went hand in hand.
>
> > Keith
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Barber_(engineer)
Parsons made the turbine efficient and practical:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_turbine
> You can blame Brown Boveri for the demise of the Coal Fired Steam
> Locos. Don't you just hate them already :)-
The blame belongs on their 5% efficiency.
jsw
Daryl Hunt
The turbine wasn't what did in the steam engines. In fact, the
steam turbine could really only be used for long hauls. It's the
marrage of the Diesel with the electric motor that did it. And
Brown Boveri is a leader in this technology and has been for the
last 100 years or so.
Dan
Steam locomotives are labour intensive. The engineer has to
constantly monitor speed, steam pressure, water level and the like.
Later improvements include a water pump that automatically adds water to
the boiler. Coal fired ones require a fireman with a strong grip on his
shovel, more than one shovel has been sucked into the firebox, and he's
constantly in motion. Wood fired locomotives don't need a shovel, but
the fireman is constantly feeding the firebox. Oil fired locomotives
have the advantage of oil being pump fed.
Diesel-electric don't require a fireman. Unions fought getting rid of
them anyway.
When it comes to efficiency steam piston vs steam turbine that
depends on the point on the power curve. Pistons have better low end
eficiency.
Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
Keith Willshaw
"Daryl Hunt" <dh...@i70westnospam.com> wrote in message
news:Ns2Wo.17390$rG3....@newsfe09.iad...
No , I grew up in part of an industrial town in the NE of England
close to the terminus of the worlds first public steam railway.
I recall only too well the filth and smog of the coal fired steam
era. You can keep the coal fired steam loco , give me a diesel
or electric any day. My grandad drove a shunting engine in
the docks. He was ecstatic when they replaced his tank engine
with a diesel. No he didnt have to work on a open footplate
roasted in summer and frozen in winter or have to rake out the
grated and clean the smokebox at the end of the shift. Now
he could come home from work in clean clothing without
coal dust and ash oozing from every pore.
Keith
Keith Willshaw
= The blame belongs on their 5% efficiency.
= jsw
Not to mention their insatiable demand for manpower. You
had to fire up a steam loco 3-4 hours before the shift started.
The tender had to be loaded with coal and water. After the
shift you had to dump the fire, clean the grate and clean the
smoke box. You also had to crawl under the engine topping
off the oiling points.
Kith
Peter Skelton
news:ZridnTOdhad1SrXQ...@giganews.com...
On 1/8/2011 2:14 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
> On Jan 8, 1:57 pm, Daryl Hunt<dh...@i70westnospam.com> wrote:
>> On 1/8/2011 11:33 AM, Keith Willshaw wrote:
>> ...
>>> The first practical gas turbines were introduced by the Swiss company
>>> Brown Boveri in the 1930's . For aircraft use the dvelopment of Nimonic
>>> alloys and the Whittle engine went hand in hand.
>>
>>> Keith
>>
> The inventor of the Gas turbine:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Barber_(engineer)
>
> Parsons made the turbine efficient and practical:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_turbine
>
>> You can blame Brown Boveri for the demise of the Coal Fired Steam
>> Locos. Don't you just hate them already :)-
>
> The blame belongs on their 5% efficiency.
>
> jsw
> Steam locomotives are labour intensive. The engineer has to
constantly monitor speed, steam pressure, water level and the like.
Later improvements include a water pump that automatically adds water to
the boiler. Coal fired ones require a fireman with a strong grip on his
shovel, more than one shovel has been sucked into the firebox, and he's
constantly in motion. Wood fired locomotives don't need a shovel, but
the fireman is constantly feeding the firebox. Oil fired locomotives
have the advantage of oil being pump fed.
Power stoking for coal engines was not very rare by the end of the era, on
some of the big engines a man couldn't keep up.
> Diesel-electric don't require a fireman. Unions fought getting rid of
them anyway.
When it comes to efficiency steam piston vs steam turbine that
depends on the point on the power curve. Pistons have better low end
eficiency.
Not when you're using steam injection for the draft. There were experiments
with FD and ID and implementation in South Africa IIRC.
A steam turbine would have required a transmission, electric very likely, so
powered draft would have been a fit. The choice would come down to diesel or
steam turbine for the prime mover.
Peter
Dan
>
> When it comes to efficiency steam piston vs steam turbine that
> depends on the point on the power curve. Pistons have better low end
> eficiency.
>
> Not when you're using steam injection for the draft. There were
> experiments with FD and ID and implementation in South Africa IIRC.
>
> A steam turbine would have required a transmission, electric very
> likely, so powered draft would have been a fit. The choice would come
> down to diesel or steam turbine for the prime mover.
>
> Peter
With quartered drive wheels one gets better bottom end even without
steam injection. As an aside the situations where firemen have lost
their shovels involved steam injection. It's a good thing automated feed
came into play. Big Boy's firebox is 23 feet long, steam injected and is
an oil burner. I can imagine some poor slob being sucked in had it been
a manually fed coal burner.
Bay Man
vaughn
"Bay Man" <xyxbay...@xyxmailinator.xyxcomnospam> wrote in message
news:igb04i$2fg$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
How so? There are some pretty good reasons why you don't have one in your car,
or on your lawnmower, or likely in anything else you own. For one thing, they
tend to be large for their power output (low power density), not a good thing,
especially in airplanes.
There's nothing new about the sterling engine, it's nearly 200 years old!. If
they were "well suited" to any common use, the world would be full of them by
now.
Vaughn
Daryl Hunt
In the UP and others, the fireman has been gone for at least a
decade. It's the Brakeman they are trying to get rid of. Or, at
least, were trying to get rid of a decade ago. The normal crew
now consists of the Engineer and the Conductor.
>
> When it comes to efficiency steam piston vs steam turbine that
> depends on the point on the power curve. Pistons have better low
> end eficiency.
And that is why the steam turbine never did catch on for Trains.
Daryl Hunt
Wow, that was tough to find. The Sterling Engine is still
available for Hobbiests. it's not a serious contender.
The Engine itself only produces 4 hp. When you add the Boiler
and the Engine it's rather huge for the power output.
http://www.reliablesteam.com/RSE/RSEhome.html
So if you want a sterling Steam Engine, it's rather inexpensive.
I was surprised a the low cost.
guy
>
> - Show quoted text -
Steam turbine worked fine with one of Staniers Princess Coeonations,
can not remember which one, the only reason for its conversion back to
a standard reciprocating unit was lack of compatability, in pretty
much all other aspects it proved itself superior.
wrt modern steam locos check out the 5AT project
Guy
Daryl Hunt
Believe it or not, we have people in this part of the country
that PAY to do those things. Or at least volunteer. Your area
lost this "Way of Life" long before mine did. I still remember
the Steam Engines with the Engineer, Brakeman, Fireman and
Conductor and all had a specific job to make the train operate.
And there is no other transportation as beautiful as a steam
train winding through the mountain passes. We have so few of
them left. And yes, Western Canada has gone out of it's way to
preserve some of this as well.
Daryl Hunt
They toyed with making the Big Boy's life extended. It was the
most powerful mainline engine ever made. There was one or two
bigger but not more powerful. In fact, the diesel electrics of
today have a way to go to move what the Big Boy could.
Unfortunately, track maintenance is so poorly done today that a
Big Boy would be in a constant state of derailment.
Eunometic
>
> How so? There are some pretty good reasons why you don't have one in your car,
> or on your lawnmower, or likely in anything else you own. For one thing, they
> tend to be large for their power output (low power density), not a good thing,
> especially in airplanes.
>
> There's nothing new about the sterling engine, it's nearly 200 years old!. If
> they were "well suited" to any common use, the world would be full of them by
> now.
>
Stirlings are fine for a car, were some issues over throttle response,
solved I believe, the main reason we don't see them is the same reason
we don't see gas turbines: They need to be made of very expensive
alloys. They are a little heavy, but not much worse than a non
turbocharged diesel.
Possibly we may see some progress using ceramics as subsitutes for
refractory alloys. Thge beauty of IC engines is that their high
temperatures are only exposed to the engine parts for 1/4 the time so
the materiuals can be cheap iron/alluminium based and half the waste
heat can come out of the exhaust rather than a oversized condensor or
heatch exchanger.
Dan
> Stirlings are fine for a car, were some issues over throttle response,
> solved I believe, the main reason we don't see them is the same reason
> we don't see gas turbines: They need to be made of very expensive
> alloys. They are a little heavy, but not much worse than a non
> turbocharged diesel.
Stirling refers to the system of operation: stirling cycle.
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/stirling-engine1.htm
A stirling engine can be made of anything from glass to plastic to any
solid metal. You can find working models, kits and plans all over the WWW.
Eunometic
Agreed, but to get high levels of efficiency and power suitable for
automtoive use high temperatures are required. One thing that makes
the Stirling 'heavy' is the size of the condensor heat exchanger which
must cool all of the working gas. To make this heat exchanger small
the engine must run at high heat rejection temperature both to
increase efficiency (and thus reduced the amount of heat required as
well as a high temperature difference to conduct away the waste heat
from a smaller heat exchanger: pretty soon you are dealing with the
same kinds of alloys used in gas turbines.
Hence even if Stirling engine manufacture becomes very low labour, you
still have to pay for the expensive metal.
The beaty of the Stitling is not only its high efficiency but its high
efficiency under partial load.
Keith Willshaw
"guy" <guyswe...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:25134dae-db71-48ce...@k30g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 9, 3:17 am, Daryl Hunt <dh...@nospami70west.com> wrote:
> On 1/8/2011 2:32 PM, Dan wrote:
>
>
>> > When it comes to efficiency steam piston vs steam turbine that
>> > depends on the point on the power curve. Pistons have better low
>> > end eficiency.
>>
>> And that is why the steam turbine never did catch on for Trains.- Hide
>> quoted text -
>>
> Steam turbine worked fine with one of Staniers Princess Coeonations,
> can not remember which one, the only reason for its conversion back to
> a standard reciprocating unit was lack of compatability, in pretty
> much all other aspects it proved itself superior.
The original designation was the Turbomotive , it was called the Queen Anne
when rebuilt as a conventional loco in 1952. Only 2 months after re-entering
service it was damaged beyond repair in the 1952 Harrow Rail disaster.
The reason for its rebuild was simply that it was worn out.
After doing over 300,00 miles the turbine assembly was shot and
by then the railways had been nationalised and the watchword was
standardisation.
There were two main problems with steam turbine driven locos.
One was that they tended to be inefficient at low load factors.
Stanier got round this with an innivative turbine design that
used multiple steam inlet nozzles that could be cut in progressively
as load rose.
The second major problem was that they required a pretty complex
transmission system. Stanier came up with an efficient though complex
and expensive mechanical gearing system. The Americans tried a
turb-electric system but the transmission proved rather unreliable.
The bottom line was that these systems were potentially more
efficient than conventionally steam but provided no benefit over
diesel electric traction.
> wrt modern steam locos check out the 5AT project
> Guy
Thy will be attractive to tourist steam railways but with a thermal
efficiency of 14% they wont displace diesels that can achieve
30%
Keith
Keith Willshaw
"Daryl Hunt" <dh...@nospami70west.com> wrote in message
news:igbamo$d9i$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
> On 1/8/2011 2:49 PM, Keith Willshaw wrote:
>> Not to mention their insatiable demand for manpower. You
>> had to fire up a steam loco 3-4 hours before the shift started.
>> The tender had to be loaded with coal and water. After the
>> shift you had to dump the fire, clean the grate and clean the
>> smoke box. You also had to crawl under the engine topping
>> off the oiling points.
>>
>> Kith
>>
>>
>
> Believe it or not, we have people in this part of the country that PAY to
> do those things. Or at least volunteer. Your area lost this "Way of
> Life" long before mine did. I still remember the Steam Engines with the
> Engineer, Brakeman, Fireman and Conductor and all had a specific job to
> make the train operate.
>
There are several such preserved railways within an hours
drive of my home.
> And there is no other transportation as beautiful as a steam train winding
> through the mountain passes. We have so few of them left. And yes,
> Western Canada has gone out of it's way to preserve some of this as well.
>
The Snowdon mountain railway is always popular and there
are so many steam operated tourist lines in the European
and Indian mountains that the Swiss have developed an entire industry
to make and refurbish light oil and gas fired steam locomotives.
Keith
Keith Willshaw
"Eunometic" <euno...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:60dfcdd9-2aee-40cc...@u9g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 9, 12:20 pm, "vaughn" <vaughnsi...@gmail.invalid> wrote:
>
>> How so? There are some pretty good reasons why you don't have one in your
>> car,
>> or on your lawnmower, or likely in anything else you own. For one thing,
>> they
>> tend to be large for their power output (low power density), not a good
>> thing,
>> especially in airplanes.
>>
>> There's nothing new about the sterling engine, it's nearly 200 years
>> old!. If
>> they were "well suited" to any common use, the world would be full of
>> them by
>> now.
>>
> Stirlings are fine for a car, were some issues over throttle response,
> solved I believe, the main reason we don't see them is the same reason
> we don't see gas turbines: They need to be made of very expensive
> alloys. They are a little heavy, but not much worse than a non
> turbocharged diesel.
Trouble is modern turbocharged diesels are just as efficient and a lot
cheaper as they dont require the expensive and rare alloys needed
for the heaxt exhangers in a high differential temperature stirling engine.
This is why companies such as Volkswagen, Ford and Citroen now
sell as many turbocharged diesel cars as petrol ones in europe.
You can now but small saloon or hatch back that does 60 mpg overall
with a top speed pushing 120 mph , guess what engine it uses ?
Keith
Bay Man
"vaughn" <vaugh...@gmail.invalid> wrote in message
news:igb24e$nbb$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> "Bay Man" <xyxbay...@xyxmailinator.xyxcomnospam> wrote in message
> news:igb04i$2fg$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Stirling engine is well suited to planes:
>> http://www.airsport-corp.com/stirling.html
>
> How so? There are some pretty good reasons why you don't have one in your
> car, or on your lawnmower, or likely in anything else you own. For one
> thing, they tend to be large for their power output (low power density),
> not a good thing, especially in airplanes.
They are external combustion and have high power density. They are used in
subs in France and Sweden because sea water gives great cooling properties.
The differential of hot and cold makes them more efficient - great for
planes. They are VERY quiet and smooth.
The operating conditions of cars is very different to ships, subs, and
planes. Fast acceleration is not needed in ships and most planes. Stirlings
are poorer at rapid acceleration than IC engines. The emissions are greatly
better as they are external combustion - a small oil burner like in a
heating boiler or furnace.
Stirlings are great for hybrid cars. The batteries and electric motors do
the acceleration assist.
> There's nothing new about the sterling engine, it's nearly 200 years old!.
> If they were "well suited" to any common use, the world would be full of
> them by now.
There are "many" varients of the Stirling and it has come on greatly in the
past 10 years. Some are free-wheeling piston, the only moving part, with
coils in the piston and around the cylinder to produce electricity.
We still drive around with appalling piston IC engines which are dogs, with
many better propulsion units to take its place - these have been around for
many decades. But we do not see them because of vested interest of big
corporations.
Bay Man
"Eunometic" <euno...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:60dfcdd9-2aee-40cc...@u9g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
Stirlings are fine for a car, were some issues over throttle response,
solved I believe, the main reason we don't see them is the same reason
we don't see gas turbines: They need to be made of very expensive
alloys. They are a little heavy, but not much worse than a non
turbocharged diesel.
<<<
They do not need expensive alloys. The throttle response can be solved using
electric motors for the drive. Engineers have puts figures together and
come up with a Stirling generator charging batteries and powering an
electric motor. The efficiency of the constantly revving Stirlings, revving
at their sweet spots, greatly exceeds IC engines. You are right about the
size and weight, which is no better than a turbo diesel. But the size is
getting smaller.
The Stirling is ideal for planes. Have one in the fuselage (quiet and
smooth) and small, powerful electric motors on the wings driving props.
Weight can be better balanced in the plane
Bay Man
"Keith Willshaw" <keith...@demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bAiWo.87307$SY.3...@newsfe06.ams2...
> Trouble is modern turbocharged diesels are just as efficient
They are not. They are also very complex, noisy and vibrate.
Peter Skelton
Dan steam injection into the fire system has nothing to do with low end
torque.
Dan
I didn't think it did directly. I was thinking of keeping pressure up
when stationary.
As an aside, here in the South there are many stationary farm steam
engines in various stages of disrepair. Some are very well restored and
operational.
Jim Wilkins
wrote:
> ...>
> We still drive around with appalling piston IC engines which are dogs, with
> many better propulsion units to take its place - these have been around for
> many decades. But we do not see them because of vested interest of big
> corporations.
Bull. YOU don't see them.
http://www.impactlab.net/2008/11/12/dean-kamen-develops-worlds-first-stirling-hybrid-electric-car/
Bay Man
http://www.impactlab.net/2008/11/12/dean-kamen-develops-worlds-first-stirling-hybrid-electric-car/
<<<
Thank you. You have confirmed my point, "many better propulsion units to
take its place ". They are there, but we don't see them at the local
dealers.
Peter Skelton
It's mostly traction engines here. If you're really interested in this
stuff, there's a railway museum in Pennsylvania that gives a tour of its
shops. We went through a couple of Novembers ago on a bitchy day, only SWMBP
and myself for the tour (You can wander around too, we did that on a later
visit.) The guide offered a twenty-minute walk through, two hours later we
stopped for lunch. He really knew his sh*t and talked to her as an equal
once he found out what she does for a living. They do a lot of contract
restoration for other steam museums. Fascinating.
Dan
A couple of years ago I started building a live steam engine in 0.75"
scale. I go through a few months of working on it and a few of not.
http://www.phutcheson.net/a3_switcher.htm
vaughn
"Bay Man" <xyxbay...@xyxmailinator.xyxcomnospam> wrote in message
> But we do not see them because of vested interest of big corporations.
forcing us all to use old technology so we will use more oil? How about the 200
MPH carburetor they bought up?
If Sterling engines were better, some company would be putting them in cars.
That's the way free enterprise works. Forget the conspiracy theories.
Vaughn
vaughn
"Bay Man" <xyxbay...@xyxmailinator.xyxcomnospam> wrote in message
>
> The Stirling is ideal for planes.
If the Stirling is truly ideal for planes, then you should be able to show us a
few various airplanes powered by quiet, efficient Stirling engines. Please do
so.
Vaughn
Jim Wilkins
<xyxbayman...@xyxmailinator.xyxcomnospam> wrote:
> "Jim Wilkins" <kb1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:44eb640e-0c27-46b9...@k30g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 9, 8:48 am, "Bay Man" <xyxbayman...@xyxmailinator.xyxcomnospam>
> wrote:
>
> > ...>
> > We still drive around with appalling piston IC engines which are dogs,
> > with
> > many better propulsion units to take its place - these have been around
> > for
> > many decades. But we do not see them because of vested interest of big
> > corporations.
>
> Bull. YOU don't see them.
>
> <<<
>
> Thank you. You have confirmed my point, "many better propulsion units to
> take its place ". They are there, but we don't see them at the local
> dealers.
And when you did see them (Segway) you didn't buy enough of them.
Alternative transportation is what OTHER people should be forced to
use,
Bay Man
"vaughn" <vaugh...@gmail.invalid> wrote in message
>
> "Bay Man" <xyxbay...@xyxmailinator.xyxcomnospam> wrote in message
> news:igcep4$vqp$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> But we do not see them because of vested interest of big corporations.
> Bullshit. Now I suppose you're about to tell us all how the oil companies
> are forcing us all to use old technology so we will use more oil?
I never mentioend oil companies.
> How about the 200 MPH carburetor they bought up?
The oil companies? Does anyone use a carburettor any more?
> If Sterling engines were better, some company would be putting them in
> cars.
Most cars in the world are made by a few corporations.
> That's the way free enterprise works. Forget the conspiracy theories.
Free enterprise? Where corporations are concerned? You are having a laugh.
GM bought up the LA trams system and dismantled it to eliminate competition
and sell cars. Some free enterprise. As a result the USA has the worst
public transport systems in the western world. US cities, apart from a few,
are just crap! But GM makes loads of dosh!
The current snails pace techno changes in the auto industry is forced on the
corporations. They spent billion in legal fees to stop pollution controls,
instead of getting on with it - which would have been cheaper.
You are naive!
Bay Man
It is clear you are senile.
Bay Man
"vaughn" <vaugh...@gmail.invalid> wrote in message
Tell us why they are not in planes, when all points to them being a good
propulsion unit for this market.
vaughn
"Bay Man" <xyxbay...@xyxmailinator.xyxcomnospam> wrote in message
> You are naive!
No, you are the one trying to claim that 1) Stirling engines are great for
aircraft and 2) It is BIG corporations that are keeping us from enjoying the
wonderful benefits of Stirling engines. You haven't yet made either case.
Vaughn
>
vaughn
"Bay Man" <xyxbay...@xyxmailinator.xyxcomnospam> wrote in message
"ALL" does not point to them being a good propulsion unit for that market.
Aviation has been around for 100 years now, Stirling engines nearly twice that
long. I don't recall seeing ONE Stirling-powered airplane. I am a pilot and a
long-term Experimental Aircraft Assn (EAA) member. There are thousands of
free-thinking folks out there with amazing capabilities who love to build
airplanes. There is nothing holding these folks back. I've been to the huge
fly-ins at Oshkosh and Lakeland several times. I've seen thousands of homebuilt
aircraft, including some unbelievable flying creations. Never once a Stirling!
Believe me, if suitable powerplants existed or could be built, there would be at
least a few Stirlings flying. We're all waiting for you to point to them.
Vaughn
vaughn
Aerodrome models 5 and 6 made some of the earliest successful heavier than air
(unmanned) flights on steam power. This "prior art", along with an IC-powered
unsuccessful manned version, contributed to later legal issues for the Wright
Brothers.
(From the Smithsonian site) "The power plant was a single-cylinder,
one-horsepower steam engine equipped with a double-action piston with a slide
valve, and a flashtube boiler fired by a pressure burner that vaporized
gasoline. The engine drove twin propellers, centrally mounted between the front
and rear sets of wings, through a system of shafts and bevel gears. The aircraft
weighed approximately 11 kg (24.3 lb) ready for flight."
http://www.nasm.si.edu/collections/artifact.cfm?id=A19050002000
Vaughn
Eunometic
<xyxbayman...@xyxmailinator.xyxcomnospam> wrote:
> "vaughn" <vaughnsi...@gmail.invalid> wrote in message
>
> We still drive around with appalling piston IC engines which are dogs, with
> many better propulsion units to take its place - these have been around for
> many decades. But we do not see them because of vested interest of big
> corporations.
The IC engine is almost impossible to beat in terms of price whther it
is of the SI or CI type.
If there were an alternative someone would have employed it. The fact
is even Toyota went to great lengths to develope the petrol powered
hybrid synergy drive rather than pouring that money into stirlings.
We will likely soon see a 3rd type of engine: the HCCI (homogenous
charge compression ignition) engine but as before it will be a
reciprocating 4 stroke.
Apart from niche applications: low temperatue engines (therefore free
of expensive metals), domestic cogeneration where the waste heat of
electricity generations is ued to heat water, safe but low efficiency
multifuel engines for the 3rd world agriculture, or air independant
propulsion in a submarine and concentrated solar power they are
unlikely to compete with IC engines simply due to price
considerations.
An intersting application is domestic cogeneration where each home or
office is equiped with a small, cheap stirling engine using relatively
low grade materials. A central network switches it on to generate
electricity to the grid while the waste heat is stored in off peak
storage hot water tanks for heating and domestic hot water. In this
way essentially 100% of natural gas can become usable.
David E. Powell
The Stirling engine has been talked up for years. If it is that cheap
and that good everyone would have one by now.
Daryl Hunt
You mean you don't have one? I got mine. Bought some cracker
jacks and low and behold. Of course that was in 1953 when the
toys were actually something. Now, you would just a picture of one.
Eunometic
wrote:
In fact we may soon see a BMW steam car, sort of:
http://paultan.org/2005/12/11/bmw-turbosteamer/
Bay Man
On Jan 10, 12:48 am, "Bay Man"
> The IC engine is almost impossible to beat
> in terms of price whther it is of the SI or CI type.
Only because of mass production. Mass produce small turbines, Stirlings and
the prices will tumble.
> If there were an alternative someone
> would have employed it.
There is and the corporations did not use them. They do not want radical
change.
> The fact is even Toyota went to great lengths
> to develope the petrol powered hybrid synergy
> drive rather than pouring that money into stirlings.
The Synergy drive was quicker and easier in R&D. Nothing new was used. They
had no experience of Stirlings and would need to set up a whole new R&D
section and educate the engineers on these.
> Apart from niche applications: low temperatue engines (therefore free
> of expensive metals), domestic cogeneration where the waste heat of
> electricity generations is ued to heat water, safe but low efficiency
> multifuel engines for the 3rd world agriculture, or air independant
> propulsion in a submarine and concentrated solar power they are
> unlikely to compete with IC engines simply due to price
> considerations.
Because of scale of manufacture nothing else.
> An intersting application is domestic cogeneration where each home or
> office is equiped with a small, cheap stirling engine using relatively
> low grade materials. A central network switches it on to generate
> electricity to the grid while the waste heat is stored in off peak
> storage hot water tanks for heating and domestic hot water. In this
> way essentially 100% of natural gas can become usable.
They are available right now using Stirlings.
http://www.baxi.co.uk/products/combinedheatandpower.htm
Small outside companies will develop Stirlings, as they have done, and then
the Corporation will come in at the last minutes and take them up - as
usual.
Bay Man
"vaughn" <vaugh...@gmail.invalid> wrote in message
>
> "Bay Man" <xyxbay...@xyxmailinator.xyxcomnospam> wrote in message
> news:igdib2$9no$3...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>> "vaughn" <vaugh...@gmail.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:igd0o0$7ng$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>
>>> "Bay Man" <xyxbay...@xyxmailinator.xyxcomnospam> wrote in message
>>> news:igcep5$vqp$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>
>>>> The Stirling is ideal for planes.
>>>
>>> If the Stirling is truly ideal for planes, then you should be able to
>>> show us a few various airplanes powered by quiet, efficient Stirling
>>> engines. Please do so.
>>
>> Tell us why they are not in planes, when all points to them being a good
>> propulsion unit for this market.
>
> "ALL" does not point to them being a good propulsion unit for that market.
It does.
> Aviation has been around for 100 years now, Stirling engines nearly twice
> that long.
Not in the various forms of recent years they have not. They are subs.
Quiet vibration free, higher efficiency, etc.
Isn't the FAA suppressing the electric plane as well?
Bay Man
"vaughn" <vaugh...@gmail.invalid> wrote in message
>
> "Bay Man" <xyxbay...@xyxmailinator.xyxcomnospam> wrote in message
> news:igdib1$9no$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> You are naive!
>
> No, you are the one trying to claim that 1) Stirling engines are great for
> aircraft and 2)
Which they are. Some R&D for a specific Stirling unit will make them ideal
for planes.
> It is BIG corporations that are keeping us from enjoying the wonderful
> benefits of Stirling engines.
They are, and I have made the case.
Daryl Hunt
And why hasn't BMW followed up on this? Sort of like that claim
by an Aussie about his wonderful Air Powered Car that should be
able to run completely from LA to NY on a single tank of gas.
Yet, the only thing produced so far is Warehouse short ranged
vehicles.
Bay Man
> In fact we may soon see a BMW steam car, sort of:
> http://paultan.org/2005/12/11/bmw-turbosteamer/
Recycling exhaust gas is not new in concept. Only 15% better fuel
efficiency. :( You cannot make a silk purse from a sows ear.
BMW have been looking into a charging system that only charges when the
engine is on over-run or braking. The alternator is disconnected via a
beefy clutch when the engine is powering the car. The same idea could be
applied to an a/c compressor, and when running around a town/city the mpg
must clearly rise as the a/c, like the alternator, only runs when on engine
over-run or braking. Of course an override switch for the a/c must be on
the dash. Fuel consumption must rise substantially implementing these two
simple measurers.
The charging system charges when the battery charge drops to a certain
level. Without that, the battery would deplete in no time.
In city driving it was viewed the kinetic energy would be enough to charge
the battery. A long highway drive would entail the alternator coming in
occasionally - not all the time. BMW said about 4% from the alternator
alone. An a/c compressor alone can drop consumption by 10%. Make that
electric.
Then put in electric power steering and fuel consumption matters are even
better again. Then using a Ni-cad battery or Lith-Ion battery will mean
greater electrical capacity for a smaller battery package.
The fan belts for the water pump and power steering can be eliminated. Also
using an electric a/c compressor will make matters better too and again
another fan belt eliminated. None of this is rocket science and can be
implemented immediately in all cars.
Electrically power ancillaries are here but not widely used. Electric
ancillaries will make no difference to the price of a car once production is
up and running.
Electric motors are very reliable. I can't see any reason why they would
just fail.
The bearings tend to fail before the electrical part. Bearing failure is
detectable by the noise.
But improving the IC engine is not what they want to spend R&D money on.
Engines are designed to reach 50,000 miles before NVH falls away, then the
marketing men can sell another car. Electric ancillaries could have been
implemented 20 years ago, but the auto industry does not like change - why
the IC engine is a crock, where 75% of the energy in the tank is wasted. R&D
money is on all electric and hybrids. BMW are fiddling with the edges in
start-stop, etc, because they have done little R&D on hybrids. The Germans
were way behind and are trying to catch up.
Look at supercapacitors, as they can claw back 99.99% of the kinetic energy
and give it all back. Busses are running on them in Shanghai. A Texas
company "claims" to have developed a supercapacitor with the same energy
density and size as a normal lead-acid battery. That mean the chemical
battery can be replaced. BTW, the Prius was originally to have a
supercapacitor. A combination of supercapacitor and battery may be
implemented soon. The Prius has improved in 12 years.
BTW, the new Chevy Volt was a let down. It was to be 100% electric drive
with genset on board. GM announced he change a few moths before launch. The
engines now is direct drive over 70mph and depending on conditions from
35mph. Little more than a re-jigged Prius in technology. All because they
could not come up with an efficient engine for the genset, using an old
off-the-shelf unit. Lotus have made one and is being manufactured soon.
Jaguar maybe using it.
Bay Man
"Daryl Hunt" <dh...@nospami70west.com> wrote in message
news:igeg7l$7fd$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
The point of the Aussie unit is the air motors design. It has to start
somewhere. The Corporations will not take up a new notion. The designer
worked for M-Benz.
Keith Willshaw
"Eunometic" <euno...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:8b23fa2b-9f35-49b0...@f20g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
= In fact we may soon see a BMW steam car, sort of:
= http://paultan.org/2005/12/11/bmw-turbosteamer/
Given that the article is over 5 years old and it hasnt
appeared even as a concept car I wouldn't hold your
breath. The way BMW are going seems to b the tried and
tested common rail diesel.
http://www.bmw.com/com/en/insights/technology/technology_guide/articles/diesel_engine.html
http://uk.autoblog.com/2010/06/28/refreshed-mini-now-tax-free-thanks-to-new-bmw-diesel-engine/
Keith
Daryl Hunt
No, there are electric planes in the air today. Civilian and
Military. The problem is the weight of the whole powerplant
(including engine and batteries) keeps the electric into small AC
and drones. And the longest pure electric can go is about an
hour and a half total. Unless we are talking about an electric
Glider that does exist and that's not quite a pure electric.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWoLsJz8J5U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8Pb_psj1A8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4MNWusxq6A&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRVVdYU1c0M&feature=related
Now for the meat of the problem.
The smaller the AC, the more efficient it is. The smaller the
motor (up to a certain size) the more efficient it is. Now, we
let it grow to something the size of a heavy single or twin
engine that has anywhere from 150 p to 500 hp and the electric
may be able to go that high in HP but the battery/engine combo
would far outweigh the Gas/fuel engine. And the larger you make
it, the less flight time you will have.
You can build something in the 500 twin HP range quite easy but
the Batteries would weigh in at over 1000 lbs and the motor
making that twin Lycoming with fuel much more efficient. Right
now, the biggest available to use in in an AC is about 150 hp and
it's a hungry critter.
As batteries get more efficient the weight goes down. And the
motors go into mass production. But until then, don't look for
too many of these things.
The FAA doesn't stop electric planes from flying. Like many of
the Gas Engined Planes, it's called an Experimental until it's
all ironed out. There were many gas light planes that started
the same way and they were bought by commercial AC builders and
turned into mass production.
Look for the Electric to go the same route.
Daryl Hunt
It hit the news and them fizzled. It was a hoax for the most
part. What did grow out of it was the inside warehouse vehicles
that can recharge from the compressors that most warehouses
already have on station. It's completely eco friendly that is if
the Compressor didn't take more than it gives back.
It has to
> start somewhere. The Corporations will not take up a new notion.
> The designer worked for M-Benz.
I just don't see it going anywhere at this time. There are too
many other things showing real promise. And Steam isn't one of them.
Keith Willshaw
"Daryl Hunt" <dh...@i70westnospam.com> wrote in message
news:j1AWo.7579$231....@newsfe14.iad...
> On 1/10/2011 1:06 AM, Bay Man wrote:
>
> You can build something in the 500 twin HP range quite easy but the
> Batteries would weigh in at over 1000 lbs
And the rest. Consider the Tesla sports car, it has a 250 hp
motor and it uses a a lithium ion battery pack that weighs
1000 lbs and provides a max 200 kilowats of electricity
To give your 500 hp a running time at full power of 1 hour
you'd be looking at nearer 4000 lbs of batteries with present
technology.
Keith
vaughn
"Bay Man" <xyxbay...@xyxmailinator.xyxcomnospam> wrote in message
>
> "vaughn" <vaugh...@gmail.invalid> wrote in message
> news:igdk78$gla$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>> aircraft and 2)
>
> Which they are.
For the third time, I invite you to show us some Stirling powered airplanes.
>
>> It is BIG corporations that are keeping us from enjoying the wonderful
>> benefits of Stirling engines.
>
> They are, and I have made the case.
No, you stated your opinion. You have proven nothing.
Vaughn
vaughn
"Bay Man" <xyxbay...@xyxmailinator.xyxcomnospam> wrote in message
>
>>> Tell us why they are not in planes, when all points to them being a good
>>> propulsion unit for this market.
>>
>> "ALL" does not point to them being a good propulsion unit for that market.
>
> It does.
Show us the Stirling-powered planes.
>
>> Aviation has been around for 100 years now, Stirling engines nearly twice
>> that long.
>
> Not in the various forms of recent years they have not. They are subs. Quiet
> vibration free, higher efficiency, etc.
Show us the Stirling-powered planes, or shut up.
>
> Isn't the FAA suppressing the electric plane as well?
No. You can buy at least one model today.
http://www.lange-aviation.com/htm/english/products/antares_20e/antares_20E.html
More mainstream designs are already flying & will be on the market soon.
http://yuneeccouk.site.securepod.com/Aircraft.html
Homebuilders are also experimenting with them and companies are producing kits
for that market.
http://www.sonexaircraft.com/news/newsarchive95.html#E-Flight_first_flight
. http://www.electraflyer.com/
http://www.electraflyer.com/
Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about, but that doesen't seem to
keep you from posting.
Vaughn
Keith Willshaw
>
> You can build something in the 500 twin HP range quite easy but the
> Batteries would weigh in at over 1000 lbs
And the rest. Consider the Tesla sports car, it has a 250 hp
Keith Willshaw
There is nothing new about compressed air motors.
Jules Verne was pushing the idea in the 19th century.
The problem is that the energy density achievable is
way below what is needed. Even at 4500 psi you get
a lower energy density than batteries and the overall
thermal efficiency is abysmal (10-14%).
Then there is the safety issue. 10 cubic feet of air at 4500
psi would make a big kaboom if the pressure vessel
ruptured.
Keith
vaughn
"Keith Willshaw" <keith...@demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:D8EWo.53569$_t1....@newsfe07.ams2...
>
>
> There is nothing new about compressed air motors.
> Jules Verne was pushing the idea in the 19th century.
> The problem is that the energy density achievable is
> way below what is needed. Even at 4500 psi you get
> a lower energy density than batteries and the overall
> thermal efficiency is abysmal (10-14%).
All true.
Few folks seem to appreciate the thermal efficiency problem of compressed gas
(air) energy storage. Simply put, when you compress gas (air), it gets hot.
Unless you do something to recover that heat (extra cost, weight. complexity) it
represents a huge loss of energy.
When you now try to use your compressed gas (air) as an energy source, you run
into the other end of the same problem, the gas gets very cold! Getting cold
greatly reduces the expansion of the gas, meaning that you can extract less
energy. That little thermal efficiency problem gets you coming and going! Of
course, you can use interstage heat exchangers to warm up the gas between
expansion stages, but that means (guess what?) more cost, weight, complexity,
increased size and cooling drag. You just can't win!
>
> Then there is the safety issue. 10 cubic feet of air at 4500
> psi would make a big kaboom if the pressure vessel
> ruptured.
Again true, but to be fair you can say much the same about any compact source of
stored energy. For example; batteries or your car's gas tank.
Vaughn
Keith Willshaw
> On 1/10/2011 1:06 AM, Bay Man wrote:
>
> You can build something in the 500 twin HP range quite easy but the
> Batteries would weigh in at over 1000 lbs
And the rest. Consider the Tesla sports car, it has a 250 hp
guy
>
> - Show quoted text -
I suppose you could argue that modern aero engines are actually ~50%
steam powered, the only difference from a steam turbine is that the
steam is hotter and generated completely differently ;-)
Guy
Keith Willshaw
There is nothing new about compressed air motors.
Jules Verne was pushing the idea in the 19th century.
The problem is that the energy density achievable is
way below what is needed. Even at 4500 psi you get
a lower energy density than batteries and the overall
thermal efficiency is abysmal (10-14%).
Then there is the safety issue. 10 cubic feet of air at 4500
psi would make a big kaboom if the pressure vessel
ruptured.
Keith
Keith Willshaw
There is nothing new about compressed air motors.
Keith Willshaw
> On 1/10/2011 1:06 AM, Bay Man wrote:
>
> You can build something in the 500 twin HP range quite easy but the
> Batteries would weigh in at over 1000 lbs
And the rest. Consider the Tesla sports car, it has a 250 hp
Keith Willshaw
>
> You can build something in the 500 twin HP range quite easy but the
> Batteries would weigh in at over 1000 lbs
And the rest. Consider the Tesla sports car, it has a 250 hp
Keith Willshaw
>
> You can build something in the 500 twin HP range quite easy but the
> Batteries would weigh in at over 1000 lbs
And the rest. Consider the Tesla sports car, it has a 250 hp
Keith Willshaw
>
> You can build something in the 500 twin HP range quite easy but the
> Batteries would weigh in at over 1000 lbs
And the rest. Consider the Tesla sports car, it has a 250 hp
Keith Willshaw
"vaughn" <vaugh...@gmail.invalid> wrote in message
>
> "Bay Man" <xyxbay...@xyxmailinator.xyxcomnospam> wrote in message
> news:igefeh$4v7$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>>>> Tell us why they are not in planes, when all points to them being a
>>>> good propulsion unit for this market.
>>>
>>> "ALL" does not point to them being a good propulsion unit for that
>>> market.
>>
>> It does.
>
> Show us the Stirling-powered planes.
>>
>>> Aviation has been around for 100 years now, Stirling engines nearly
>>> twice that long.
>>
>> Not in the various forms of recent years they have not. They are subs.
>> Quiet vibration free, higher efficiency, etc.
>
> Show us the Stirling-powered planes, or shut up.
The Kockums Stirling engines are a fine example of why
nobody is using them in aircraft. Their power to weight
ratio of 2.5 lb/hp is excellent for a Stirling engine but abysmal
compared with even WW2 aero engines. The RR Merlin
managed 0.96 lb/hp in 1939 !
A modern gas turbine such as the GE T700 has a power
to weight ratio of around 0.25 lb/hp a full order of magnitude
better than the submarine stirling engines
Keith
Keith Willshaw
>
> You can build something in the 500 twin HP range quite easy but the
> Batteries would weigh in at over 1000 lbs
And the rest. Consider the Tesla sports car, it has a 250 hp
Keith Willshaw
"vaughn" <vaugh...@gmail.invalid> wrote in message
>
> "Bay Man" <xyxbay...@xyxmailinator.xyxcomnospam> wrote in message
> news:igefeh$4v7$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>>>> Tell us why they are not in planes, when all points to them being a
>>>> good propulsion unit for this market.
>>>
>>> "ALL" does not point to them being a good propulsion unit for that
>>> market.
>>
>> It does.
>
> Show us the Stirling-powered planes.
>>
>>> Aviation has been around for 100 years now, Stirling engines nearly
>>> twice that long.
>>
>> Not in the various forms of recent years they have not. They are subs.
>> Quiet vibration free, higher efficiency, etc.
>
> Show us the Stirling-powered planes, or shut up.
The Kockums Stirling engines are a fine example of why
Jim Wilkins
<xyxbayman...@xyxmailinator.xyxcomnospam> wrote:
> ...>
> > In fact we may soon see a BMW steam car, sort of:
> >http://paultan.org/2005/12/11/bmw-turbosteamer/
>
> Recycling exhaust gas is not new in concept. Only 15% better fuel
> efficiency. :( You cannot make a silk purse from a sows ear.
>
> BMW have been looking into a charging system that only charges when the
> engine is on over-run or braking. The alternator is disconnected via a
> beefy clutch when the engine is powering the car. The same idea could be
> applied to an a/c compressor, and when running around a town/city the mpg
> must clearly rise as the a/c, like the alternator, only runs when on engine
> over-run or braking. Of course an override switch for the a/c must be on
> the dash. Fuel consumption must rise substantially implementing these two
> ...
You've just clearly demonstrated why you aren't on an alternate energy
R&D team.
JSW
who is, but can't discuss much.
Keith Willshaw
>
> You can build something in the 500 twin HP range quite easy but the
> Batteries would weigh in at over 1000 lbs
And the rest. Consider the Tesla sports car, it has a 250 hp
Keith Willshaw
"vaughn" <vaugh...@gmail.invalid> wrote in message
news:igf2sk$dqe$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> news:igefeh$4v7$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>>>> Tell us why they are not in planes, when all points to them being a
>>>> good propulsion unit for this market.
>>>
>>> "ALL" does not point to them being a good propulsion unit for that
>>> market.
>>
>> It does.
>
> Show us the Stirling-powered planes.
>>
>>> Aviation has been around for 100 years now, Stirling engines nearly
>>> twice that long.
>>
>> Not in the various forms of recent years they have not. They are subs.
>> Quiet vibration free, higher efficiency, etc.
>
> Show us the Stirling-powered planes, or shut up.
The Kockums Stirling engines are a fine example of why
Keith Willshaw
"vaughn" <vaugh...@gmail.invalid> wrote in message
news:igf2sk$dqe$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> news:igefeh$4v7$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>>>> Tell us why they are not in planes, when all points to them being a
>>>> good propulsion unit for this market.
>>>
>>> "ALL" does not point to them being a good propulsion unit for that
>>> market.
>>
>> It does.
>
> Show us the Stirling-powered planes.
>>
>>> Aviation has been around for 100 years now, Stirling engines nearly
>>> twice that long.
>>
>> Not in the various forms of recent years they have not. They are subs.
>> Quiet vibration free, higher efficiency, etc.
>
> Show us the Stirling-powered planes, or shut up.
The Kockums Stirling engines are a fine example of why
Keith Willshaw
>
> You can build something in the 500 twin HP range quite easy but the
> Batteries would weigh in at over 1000 lbs
And the rest. Consider the Tesla sports car, it has a 250 hp
Jim Wilkins
> ...>
> As batteries get more efficient the weight goes down. And the
> motors go into mass production. But until then, don't look for
> too many of these things.
Hand-made prototypes of highly efficient motors are as light as
production models. This isn't the same as a welded and machined 6061
aluminum prototype chassis vs a production cast magnesium alloy one.
jsw
Keith Willshaw
>
> You can build something in the 500 twin HP range quite easy but the
> Batteries would weigh in at over 1000 lbs
And the rest. Consider the Tesla sports car, it has a 250 hp
Keith Willshaw
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds
"Bay Man" <xyxbay...@xyxmailinator.xyxcomnospam> wrote:
> And when you did see them (Segway) you didn't buy enough of them.
> Alternative transportation is what OTHER people should be forced to
> use,
How is the Segway better than a bicycle?
vaughn
"Malcom "Mal" Reynolds" <atlas-...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:atlas-bugged-029A...@aquila.ka.weretis.net...
>
> How is the Segway better than a bicycle?
In some ways a Segway is better and in other ways it sucks compared to a
bicycle. They are two different vehicles, made for different uses (with some
overlap). For a shortish trip on a crowded sidewalk or a factory floor,
particularly with frequent stops, the Segway probably rocks. For any trip
longer than a mile, give me my bike.
Vaughn
David E. Powell
> "Malcom "Mal" Reynolds" <atlas-bug...@invalid.invalid> wrote in messagenews:atlas-bugged-029A...@aquila.ka.weretis.net...
>
>
>
> > How is the Segway better than a bicycle?
>
> In some ways a Segway is better and in other ways it sucks compared to a
> bicycle. They are two different vehicles, made for different uses (with some
> overlap). For a shortish trip on a crowded sidewalk or a factory floor,
> particularly with frequent stops, the Segway probably rocks. For any trip
> longer than a mile, give me my bike.
>
> Vaughn
Plus the bike will be cheaper and easier to make.
Keith Willshaw
"vaughn" <vaugh...@gmail.invalid> wrote in message
>
> "Malcom "Mal" Reynolds" <atlas-...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> news:atlas-bugged-029A...@aquila.ka.weretis.net...
>>
>> How is the Segway better than a bicycle?
>
> In some ways a Segway is better and in other ways it sucks compared to a
> bicycle. They are two different vehicles, made for different uses (with
> some overlap). For a shortish trip on a crowded sidewalk or a factory
> floor, particularly with frequent stops, the Segway probably rocks.
Alternatively you could just walk.
Keith
Dan
Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
Keith Willshaw
"Dan" <B24...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
news:1eKdnTNjpoGpELbQ...@giganews.com...
Not only cheaper but a lot better at handling stairs :)
Keith
Eunometic
> "Daryl Hunt" <dh...@i70westnospam.com> wrote in message
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 1/10/2011 1:39 AM, Bay Man wrote:
>
> >> "Daryl Hunt" <dh...@nospami70west.com> wrote in message
> >>news:igeg7l$7fd$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
> >>> On 1/10/2011 12:32 AM, Eunometic wrote:
> >>>> On Jan 10, 4:18 pm, "David E. Powell"<David_Powell3...@msn.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>> On Jan 9, 11:45 pm, Eunometic<eunome...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> >>>>http://paultan.org/2005/12/11/bmw-turbosteamer/
>
> >>> by an Aussie about his wonderful Air Powered Car that should be
> >>> able to run completely from LA to NY on a single tank of gas.
> >>> Yet, the only thing produced so far is Warehouse short ranged
> >>> vehicles.
>
> >> The point of the Aussie unit is the air motors design.
>
> > It hit the news and them fizzled. It was a hoax for the most part. What
> > did grow out of it was the inside warehouse vehicles that can recharge
> > from the compressors that most warehouses already have on station. It's
> > completely eco friendly that is if the Compressor didn't take more than it
> > gives back.
>
> There is nothing new about compressed air motors.
> Jules Verne was pushing the idea in the 19th century.
> The problem is that the energy density achievable is
> way below what is needed. Even at 4500 psi you get
> a lower energy density than batteries and the overall
> thermal efficiency is abysmal (10-14%).
>
> Then there is the safety issue. 10 cubic feet of air at 4500
> psi would make a big kaboom if the pressure vessel
> ruptured.
700 bar (10000psi) seems to be the new practical limit for polymer or
CFRP tanks. They'll never go kaboom unless you are hit by APFSDS or a
Hollow charge weapon, in which case the tank is the least of your
worries. Daimler Benz claim they are at the verge of commercial PEM
fuel cell automobiles and 700 bar hydrogen storage is the chosen
method.
I can't see where the thermal efficiency limitations come from, these
are engineering not thermodyanic ones. So long as you have say a
quadrouple expansion engine with heat exchangers full recovery should
be feasible. I mean if you compressed the air in a cylinder with a
piston, and then released it, you would recover all the energy.
Eunometic
> "Eunometic" <eunome...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
>
> news:8b23fa2b-9f35-49b0...@f20g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> =http://paultan.org/2005/12/11/bmw-turbosteamer/
>
> Given that the article is over 5 years old and it hasnt
> appeared even as a concept car I wouldn't hold your
> breath. The way BMW are going seems to b the tried and
> tested common rail diesel.
>
> http://www.bmw.com/com/en/insights/technology/technology_guide/articl...http://uk.autoblog.com/2010/06/28/refreshed-mini-now-tax-free-thanks-...
>
Such steam cycles however are used in stationary and marine
applications. MAN and Wartsial have Low speed turbocompounded
combined cycle diesel with an mechanical efficiency of around 55%.
After pulling about 20MW out of the main shaft, 4 MW out of the turbo
they can pull out another 1MW out of a exhaust gas heated steam
turbine.
As for automotive applications: there is lower hanging fruit in terms
of hydbrid engines both lean burn, diesel and HCCI engines though BMW
did say it would be 2015 before there was any commercialisation.
A combined cycle diesel exhaust stirling with an overall turbo for
good heat transfer is apparently potentially viable and very
efficient. In situations where the Stirling is a heat recovery device
rather than a primaty device the lower temperature materials may make
it viable.
Jim Wilkins
>
>
>
> > How is the Segway better than a bicycle?
>
> In some ways a Segway is better and in other ways it sucks compared to a
> bicycle. They are two different vehicles, made for different uses (with some
> overlap). For a shortish trip on a crowded sidewalk or a factory floor,
> particularly with frequent stops, the Segway probably rocks. For any trip
> longer than a mile, give me my bike.
>
> Vaughn
Bicycles are incompatible with pedestrians and don't function well
indoors. A bicycle has a minimum speed to balance and a relatively
large turning circle. A Segway can slow down or stop still to
accompany a person on foot and go with them through doors easily,
including revolving ones. Big heavy self-closing fire doors did take
some practice.
Segway riders aren't tempted to blow through red lights to avoid
stopping and starting like reckless, suicidal cyclists.
The GM plants I visited in the 70's had 3-wheel bikes with large
baskets, which stop for forklifts better than 2 wheels on the
sometimes oily floor but couldn't fit into the office cubicles, while
you can ride a Segway right into a space as small as a toilet stall,
spin it around in place and lean it against the door. In a large
facility it can take a quarter hour of highly valuable time to walk
from engineering to production etc.
At Segway my electronics lab and the machine shop were on opposite
ends of the building and I might have to go back and forth between
them 5 times an hour while carrying parts and tools.
On the road I prefer a bicycle. I never bought a Segway, I borrowed an
engineering development leftover that couldn't be sold. We rode them
in and around the factory to explore the challenges and find new uses,
push the envelope. And I guarantee that riding one over loose railroad
ballast gravel and old ties at any speed was a challenge.
Jim Wilkins
> ...>
> Not only cheaper but a lot better at handling stairs :)
>
Segways can go up and down stairs. I think publicly I'm supposed to
say that you have to get off first.
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds
Jim Wilkins <kb1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Bicycles are incompatible with pedestrians and don't function well
> indoors. A bicycle has a minimum speed to balance and a relatively
> large turning circle.
Bicycles are no more incompatible with pedestrians than cars or motorcycles.
Bicycles are not designed to function indoors although I imagine that it is no
hared to stop indoors than outdoors and I often used my legs to balance my
bicycle while stopped. In that vein I could also stop my bicycle and turn it
around in a very small space.
A Segway can slow down or stop still to
> accompany a person on foot and go with them through doors easily,
> including revolving ones. Big heavy self-closing fire doors did take
> some practice.
>
> Segway riders aren't tempted to blow through red lights to avoid
> stopping and starting like reckless, suicidal cyclists.
Reckless riders are reckless riders. I doubt there are any statistics that prove
Segway riders are any more safer or considerate than cyclists.
In addition, it's easier to push a bike when it has a flat tire than it is to
push a Segway when it's charge fails.
Eunometic
bug...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> In article <aeff85a5-5623-4729-bda9-730518ab3...@p8g2000vbs.googlegroups.com>,
> Jim Wilkins <kb1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Bicycles are incompatible with pedestrians and don't function well
> > indoors. A bicycle has a minimum speed to balance and a relatively
> > large turning circle.
>
> Bicycles are no more incompatible with pedestrians than cars or motorcycles.
Yeah, one of my wife's friends lost her mother to a cyclist. She
stepped onto the footpath to unjam her letterbox and was hit by a
cyclist riding the foopath, ruptured some internal organs and she
died. For people over 13 years of age this is illegal in Australia,
nevertheless many cyclists are a very self centered lot on many levels
and getting more and more militant.