It is currently Fri Apr 28, 2017 12:14 pm



Welcome
Welcome to imhotep's labs

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. In addition, registered members also see less advertisements. Registration is fast, simple, and absolutely free, so please, join our community today!


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 4 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Have we left the Dark Ages?
PostPosted: Sun Nov 24, 2013 8:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2011 7:53 am
Posts: 33
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
These thoughts and discussions are my ideas, designs and or inventions. I offer them freely to all who are interested, and thus they are handed into the public domain free of charge. This means that any and all using these concepts can not patent or copyright this data. They can however, if they wish, use it for business purposes. Since it is public domain there are no royalty fees or IP issues that anyone, person or company can ask for or insist that they 'own'.


We are in a 'high tech' world. Electronics, airplanes, nuclear power plants, cars and trucks. None of these were in existence in 1800. Yet what is the fundamental link of just about everything that creates usable power regardless of which form it takes?

We generate electricity with various methods. Hydroelectric Plants are in essence water wheels. They use water to run turbines that uses the radial motion to power generators. Coal and nuclear plants use heat to convert water into steam, which drives turbines. Same modus operandi. We are exploring HHO to run Internal Combustion Engines, while our conventional cars, trucks, planes and ships use fossil fuels, be it diesel or petrol (gasoline).

If we look at all of these things, we find that there are only two primary routes that lead to power. This excludes solar power and chemical procedures (batteries). These two primary routes are hydraulics and pneumatics.

The very first electricity plant ran on steam. The Tesla Turbine (1903) was designed for steam. The Internal Combustion Engines are not powered by the fuel they consume, the pistons themselves are pushed by the resulting high pressure gas that the fuel air mixture forms after ignition. The primary source that drives all these things is fluid. Air, steam, water or gas, these are all fluids.

The Otto Engine and the Diesel engine both convert the fuel internally inside the cylinder. They use different methods to reach combustion. The Otto engine uses an electrically created spark, while the Diesel engine reaches combustion temperature by high compression of the gas. They were both designed in the last quarter of the 1800's, yet we still use them today.

There are several mechanical inefficiencies in the Internal Combustion Engine system. Of the 180 degree crank rotation, only about 60 degrees of this is actually using most of the pneumatic pressure efficiently. When the piston is at top dead centre, the force of the gas is causing the piston to push the conrod directly towards the fulcrum of the crankshaft. While to turn the crankshaft, the force needs to go laterally. The angle is too acute, and as it gets closer to a 90 degree angle, the ratio of piston force reaches closer to a 1:1 ratio. Only when the conrod is at exactly 90 degrees to the crankshaft, do we reach a 1:1 ratio. Once that point is passed, the angle again diminishes until at bottom dead centre, it is again 0 degrees or parallel to the conrod.

The fuel/air mixture has a finite burning time, while the stroke of the engine varies. As the revolutions per minute of the engine increase, so the time of each stroke gets shorter. This means that at top dead centre, the fuel/air mixture ignites and time has to pass before enough high pressure gas has developed to push the piston effectively. It reaches the prime point of 90 degrees, and one specific RPM and only one, is the fuel/air ratio best for most efficiency. As RPM increases, the amount of fuel needed to provide more power increases dramatically. While the burning sequence is still happening, most of it occurs in the exhaust system as the time where it is efficiently used is minimal. Only about 60 degrees out of 720 degrees of engine revolution is used efficiently.

Many attempts have been approached to increase this efficiency. From fuel injection to higher efficiency carburetors, to electronic variance of fuel to air ratio and timing to attempt to reach prime efficiency. All of these methods are totally missing the simple yet obvious truth. They are throwing the baby out with the water.

What is this simple truth? These motors (in all spheres - cars, power plants etc.) are PNEUMATIC!

It is like going to a doctor with a knife stuck in my leg and what does he do for the pain? He gives me pills. Take the knife out!

Some obvious deduction:-

The amount of pressure created in 180 degrees (1 stroke of four) of the full 720 degree cycle is sufficient to power the vehicle (or whatever it drives) even though much of that gas is wasted.

Using this, we can look at a different method of running the motor.

The four strokes are as follows:-
1. Intake - Inlet Valve open. Exhaust Valve closed. Piston goes from top to bottom and sucks air/fuel mixture into the cylinder.
2. Compression - Inlet Valve Closed, Exhaust Valve closed. Piston goes from bottom to top and compresses the contained air/fuel mixture. (Reason being that when the mixture is compressed, the burn cycle is more efficient.)
3. Firing Stroke - Inlet Valve Closed. Exhaust Valve Closed. Piston goes from top to bottom, pushed by the now forming gas from the burning fuel mixture.
4. Exhaust stroke - Inlet Valve closed, Exhaust Valve open. Piston goes from bottom to top, pushing the still burning fuel/air mixture into the exhaust cycle and thereafter our atmosphere.

With a minor modification (a custom made camshaft), we can do the following:-

1. Intake Stroke - Inlet Valve Open. Exhaust Valve closed. We push high pressure gas into the cylinder via the inlet valve, which pushes the piston from top to bottom.
2. Exhaust Stroke - Inlet Valve closed. Exhaust valve open. The piston goes from bottom to top, pushing the used gas into the exhaust system.
3. Repeat Stroke 1.
4. Repeat Stroke 2.

Where do we now get the high pressure gas from? You recall that 180/720 degrees of the unmodified motor converts fuel/air into enough high pressure gas to drive the motor. That is four a 4 stroke motor. yet with this modification, we have a 2 stroke system. Do we need to double the volume of gas? No, if we do so, we overreach the specs the per-modified motor was built for. If we use the same pressure twice - 360/720 degrees of engine revolution, we have doubled the power. Thus we use half of the pressure.

There are many ways of doing this. The Separate Fuel to Gas System will be driven by the Pneumatic Modified Motor, (connected via gears). If it is a duplicate or mirror of the initial motor, (let us use a 4 cylinder motor), the only difference being that instead of the exhaust gas going out to the atmosphere, it goes into a tank. (Ignore for now the added friction of a second motor). This system will stall, as the pressure in the tank equals the pressure created by the fuel burning. However, since we now capture all of the high pressure gas, we have more pressure than we had in an internal combustion engine. Thus, we can use that gas to drive the modified pneumatic motor. Half the pressure twice per cycle = same volume of gas.

We can operate a more efficient cam driven fuel burner that uses one piston that equals in volume the volume of the initial motors firing stroke x 4 (number of pistons) that runs 1 revolution per 2 revolutions of the modified motor, where intake is 90 degrees, compression is 90 degrees and firing is 180 degrees. This piston remains in top dead centre for the duration of the burning process while the created gases go into the tank via the open exhaust valve. Alternatively, we can leave 2 of the pistons unmodified and their exhaust goes to a capturing pressure tank, wile the other two modified to operate as pneumatic pistons from the supplied gas.

The Battleships of 1900-1940 (give or take a few years) ran on external fuel burning systems, but instead of using the gas created directly from the burning of fuel, they converted heat to steam (as do the power plants, fossil and nuclear). Why convert a high pressure fluid - gas from burned fuel, into another high pressure fluid - steam, when we already have what we need to drive a pneumatic system? With electronics and a simple input/output platform like Arduino http://arduino.cc/ we can use sensors to measure exhaust fumes and alter fuel/air mixtures, we can starve fuel when gas pressure is higher than needed or increase it if it is too low.

This modified motor has another resource saving aspect that might not be initially apparent. The motor only turns when it is needed. It has a zero RPM idle. In other words, instead of a fuel supplied accelerator, we now use a gas flow valve instead. When we are at a standstill, the motor does not turn.

Now we can move on to the next level.... HHO

It is far easier to build an HHO external burner to gas system than it is to try and assist a conventional internal combustion engine. The modified motor described above, if modified on all of its pistons, does not care what form the propulsion takes. Steam, High pressure gas from HHO, high pressure gas from Diesel or Petrol, or even hydraulic fluid (if the valves open sufficiently for quick expulsion and intake).

By using undiluted HHO, (not an edition to the premixed fuel/air mixture,) we bypass the entire range of problems that occur in the internal system, from piston knockin to timing issues, you name it. The HHO simply converts to high pressure gas and is stored in a tank as a safe unburnable gas.

An Arduino circuit that measures RPM in a gearbox can change gears without any need for a clutch. The new trucks have these systems already. Basically while a clutch system already exists in a conventional car, with this modified engine, the clutch will not be used at all. The brake system is the same. To slow down you simply take your foot off the accelerator. Less pressure supplied means the motor has become your brakes. The brake pedal can be attuned electronically to pushing the flow valve towards closed. This electronics is needed, else you might fly through your windscreen if you press your brakes too hard.

The other thing about HHO, is that the current mass production of Hydrogen, uses more power (electricity to create high heat in the steam reforming process) than what we save if we can 'fill her up' with hydrogen at a gas station, as is what is proposed by Hyundai's first mass production hydrogen car. See http://www.theverge.com/2013/2/26/4031050/hyundai-begins-production-of-hydrogen-fuel-suv-tucson
Yet another pill for the symptoms instead of removing the knife.

Edward Mitchell has been working on a different method that does not use electrolysis to get hydrogen on demand. This is based on the same principles as the Stanley Meyer Water Car. You can see more here:- http://www.truegreensolutions.net/

Turbines are another way of converting fluid to motion, but there are all sorts of weaknesses involved. The Tesla Turbine looks good, but when it is under heavy load, the fluid takes a shorter route to the centre (the exhaust port) and thus loses power exponentially. I have designed (but not made and tested) a turbine that combines the best of 3 worlds, the adhesion and viscosity of the Tesla Turbine, The kinetic impact against blades of the Francis Turbine and the Pressure in pneumatic piston of conventional pneumatics. I will post it if anyone is interested.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 
 Post subject: Re: Have we left the Dark Ages?
PostPosted: Fri Dec 13, 2013 2:03 pm 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 11:48 pm
Posts: 1016
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 27 time
Sorry for the late reply, I have been helping with typhoon Yolanda.

Hehehe you are obviously a knowledgeable person, you are right about the principals of the combustion engine , call it pneumatic or a heat engine, the principals are the same, its an expanding gas.

HHO does have both benefits and drawbacks with a standard combustion engine and if i were using a it i would use it as an additive to a gasoline or diesel fuel if the engine were standard.

Yes we are living in the dark ages, lets face it nuclear plants are just a big kettle to boil steam so belong in the steam age. I wont go into the myriad of reasons why we should never use nuclear, lets just say Fukushima was an avoidable disaster of biblical proportions.

Love the knife in the leg comment Hahaha

Nice post


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Have we left the Dark Ages?
PostPosted: Mon Dec 23, 2013 3:20 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2011 7:53 am
Posts: 33
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
Greetings mbrown, long time no speak.

I did not go into full detail in my post. It was (as you can see) long enough to get the concept across. I cad designed a pneumatic motor that combines the use of rings and mechanical valves in a similar fashion to the i.c.engine. The key to fast revving pneumatics is the flow rate. The conventional pneumatic systems use small valves and tubes, which dramatically restrict the speed at which the air can flow. The valve systems are also predominantly solenoid or pressure based in which a ball either gets pushed by air pressure or a solenoid which triggers the flow direction. This switching takes time.

The greater the diameter of the inlet and outlet through which the air (gas) passes, the less impact the bottleneck has. (Bernoulli's Principle)

Something else to consider. While I have no intricate knowledge in chemistry, I did as a child mess around with chlorine bombs and dry ice bombs. In essence, these are exactly the same as what occurs inside a piston, only they there is no piston and the only way out is to burst the bottle. All combustion engines are thus controlled explosions.

While dry ice and chlorine are most likely not very good ecologically (dry ice is solid co2), I am certain that we can chemically generate high pressure ecofriendly gas. To get the thought rolling, think of micro amounts of something like c4, cordite, super sherbert<grin>, or whatever the 'safest' explosive substance there is available. It gets put in a reservoir and bingo, high pressure gas in an instant.

Think about a jet airplane. Now think about a balloon at a birthday party. We blow up a balloon and release it, and it goes whizzing off around the room. In essence, that is what a turbine jet does on the plane. However, we forget that we are creating a high pressure gas with the burning of fuel, which we then convert into rotary motion to drive the turbine, which in turn pushes air to reach a high pressure flow rate that propels the plane. Why the redundancy? It is like taking a brick and crushing it to powder so we can use the powder to make a brick..... We are looking in the wrong direction. We tend to try to increase the efficiency of the turbine (or engine) instead of using the gas we get directly. (Remove knife from leg!)

The biggest hindrance to ecologically clean and healthy survival is the global tendency to build things that have extremely short lifespans. Gone are the days where you could buy one tool and hand it on to your grandchildren because it is so well made. Making things that break is all about profit, yet the cost for the short term profit is the very real and very unrepairable destruction of the only planet we call home.

A parasite eats away the host that it lives in. When the host dies, so do the parasites.
What are we?

Several years ago, our local Electricity supplier, Eskom, were promoting ecofriendly design funding. I sent an email to them detailing conceptually a wave driven motor. It is essentially extremely simple. Imagine a ratchet, set it to clockwise to tighten the nut, set it counter clockwise to loosen the nut. Now place two of these on one shaft, put a paddle on the thing and hang it in a channel in the ocean.

To give you an idea of the scale of this device, If the flow chamber covers 70m width x 57m length x 5m depth, the volume of water in the chamber is 7465m^3. Therefore half of that ( excluding momentum etc. ) is 3732.5m^3. Therefore we have ( assuming the pendulum ratio is 1:10 ) 37325 Metric tons excerpted on the drive shaft. If the pendulum is 1m to 10 metres, this means we have 366.03321125 kN-m.

In the email I sketched a conceptual design of the machine. I received no further supply.

I moved on to far more efficient methods to harness ocean current, as opposed to the previous wave current motor. The Three River Gorge hydroelectric plant in China is the worlds biggest at 22.5 Gigawatt capacity, and the new Inga Dam Development in The Democratic Republic of Congo (Congo River), which commences creation in September next year, will be 40 Gigawatts. These two combined are a TRICKLE compared with either the Agulhas current or Antarctic Circumpolar Current harnessed at Drake Passage at the southern tip of South America.

http://oceancurrents.rsmas.miami.edu/in ... ulhas.html
quote - "As one of the major currents in the Southern Hemisphere, the Agulhas Current system transports large volumes of water. One of the earliest measurements of the geostrophic volume transport of this current came from Gordon (1985), who found it to be 67 Sv (1 Sv = 1 x 10^6 m^3 s-1). Several years later, Toole and Warren obtained a much higher estimate 85 Sv. However, several researchers pointed out that the geostrophic reference level that Toole and Warren used did not resolve the counter-flowing Agulhas Undercurrent. Beal and Bryden (1999) found the geostrophic volume transport as referenced to LADCP to be 73 Sv, which was only 3% different from the direct LADCP transport estimate. Then, Donohue et al. (2000) attempted to refine previous transport calculations by removing barotropic tides and by estimating instrumental and sampling errors. The two LADCP sections that they used yielded a net southward transport of 78±3 and 76±2 Sv. The latest estimate comes from Bryden et al. (2003) who find an average volume transport, calculated from year-long moored current meter measurements of 69.7±4.3 Sv."

Naturally, these figures are the net total current flow, but it is not difficult to concieve that utilising only 1% percent (69 700cms) of the 69.7 million cubic metres per second flow is huge. Compare it to The Inga Falls flow rate of 25,768 cms and you begin to understand that the Congo river is only a trickle.

Realise also that Agulhas is 'sucked' by the Antarctic Circumpolar Current. So it too is a trickle when compared with Drake Passage. Unfortunately I can not find valid data for ACC, but that area is avoided by ships for the more placid Agulhas Current South of Africa.

Here is the true Eskom reply but not directly, see http://www.oceanflowenergy.com/ocean-currents.html
Quote - "Eskom, South Africa’s national utility company has claimed that the Agulhas current has considerable potential for bulk power generation and have commissioned studies to investigate routes to exploitation."

Notice the use of the final word in that quote... EXPLOITANTION.

Richard Branson recently visited my counhtry and a friend of mine says that he (Branson, not my friend <grin>) is offering 20 million pounds to whoever can come up with a viable method to eradicate the use of fossil fuels. I do not know if Branson actually did state this and I could not find anything on the net to corroborate it as true.

The modification and later elimination of fossil fuel based internal combustion engines and the harnessing of natural ocean currents does exactly this, it eradicates the need for fossil fuels. So cough up Branson!

[edit] Aha! I discovered my friend was wrong... Branson did not offer 20 million pounds. He offered 25 million pounds.
http://www.mrfcj.org/about/iac/richard- ... tAodiVQAUQ

[edit2]
I also found out that the prize is for removal (they call it air scrubbing amongst other things) of existing CO2 from the atmosphere. There is even an answer in the FAQ why removing the problem (the stuff that puts the CO2 there in the first place) first is not their aim.... Remove knife? NAAAAAA..... better to give him anti-inflammatory drugs at a nominal fee.... of course.


Last edited by BlueMental on Tue Dec 24, 2013 1:47 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Have we left the Dark Ages?
PostPosted: Mon Dec 23, 2013 3:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2011 7:53 am
Posts: 33
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
Image


Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 4 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
suspicion-preferred