the steamless steam engine

[Boston]

Ive been working on finding an alternative and preferably carbon neutral propulsion system

Stirling Powered Ships

the Erickson (sp?) built by John Erickson in the late 19'th century. Unfortunately a big portion of my Stirling engine library is out on loan right now so I can't give you the specifics. If memory serves, the engine was intended to put out 600 hp (447 kW) but only put out about 300 hp (223 kW). The pistons and cylinders were big enough and slow enough moving that a reporter got on them and rode up and down on the pistons.
More recently the French research sub Saga was powered by two 75 kW Stirling engines (200 hp total) and the Swedish military manufacturer Kockums installs two to four 75 kW Stirling engines (~100 hp each) in their submarines. These engines act as "top-off" auxillary engines allowing the submarines to stay stealthy on the bottom for weeks instead of days.

Philips also put a 75 hp (55 kW) Stirling engine in a small cabin cruiser. You can read about that project in "The Philips Stirling Engine" by Hargreaves. Unfortunately it's out of print.

-- Brent Van Arsdell, February 19, 2003

When the Ericsson was built...

I found the right book. The keel was laid in April 1852 and the ship was launched on September 15, 1853. There is a great account of this story and others in "Hot Air, Caloric and Stirling Engines" by Robert Sier. The ISBN # is 0 9526417 12. Published in Great Britain by: L.A. Mair, 20 Pines Road, Chelmsford, Essex CM1 2DL United Kingdom.

the sterling engine seems best suited to electrical generation
so one possibility is to go back to the electric engine powered rather than steam power system but replace batteries as a storage device


<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/4AsnE9kwyDw&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/4AsnE9kwyDw&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/hijUrFbyeJw&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/hijUrFbyeJw&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[PAR]

There are displacement engines in service, but they have several problems which makes them difficult to apply in the marine propulsion environment.

They would be great if you live in a geothermal active area, but have limited possibilities for us.

[Fanie]

Hi B,

The sterling engine is a very interesting case. It is the only engine that is >100% efficient.

A friend of mine built a couple of them, they're in his lounge. Placing your hand on a surface starts it turning, just the heat.

I think the problem on these is going to be the size of it to make enough power, and the heat exchange rate is limiting it.
Size isn't everything, you know :D

[marshmat]

Not sure what you mean by ">100% efficient", Fanie. The Stirling cycle can theoretically reach the Carnot limit (efficiency = 1 - Tcold/Thot ).

They make wonderful demonstation engines for the physics lab, and I've heard of them being used to power submarines. They're very quiet when running. There's a company called Whispergen that sells a combined heater/generator for boats and RVs based on a Stirling engine.

They tend to be rather large and heavy for their power output. Definitely feasible if you have a convenient concentrated heat source (perhaps a huge solar dish, or a little nuclear reactor?).

[Fanie]

Matt,

Please allow me to first compliment you on such a beautiful picture in the faces to names thread :D
http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/open-discussion/faces-names-22075-15.html#post271261

If you've got a nuclear source you can make very efficiently high power using steam. The old days of the big block of lead to shield the radio active source is in the past. They can produce a much smaller and as safe a container if not better than the lead. So the mono sailers get their way now too :D

The sterlings's handicap is their rather large and heavy for their limited power output. The biggest problem is probably the rate to heat and cool the gass. Engines require rapid movement to make effient work one can use, this seems to be the place where the sterling comes short.

I think my friend said they use a special gass that has the properties to heat and cool fast, hence it start turning from body heat already. but you're going to have a hard time getting some real power from it.

[marshmat]

Fanie,
May I ask what you've heard of as a replacement for lead shielding? I've spent a lot of time in the nuclear labs on campus in the last few years, and we'd love to have something better than lead.... toxic, expensive stuff that it its. But all the replacements we've found need to be much thicker, or else are tremendously expensive. The cancer centre uses ilmenite-blended concrete around their X-ray bunkers, and many nuclear plants do the same, but you need a lot of it- several metres thick in many cases.

You're dead right about the Stirling engine's weight problem. No matter how you swing it, you can't get a huge pressure rise or a high angular velocity in these things, and so they end up being bulky, heavy brutes if you want a large power output. Still, being extremely quiet and efficient, they do have their uses... that Whispergen thing, for example.

[Boston]

Im kinda in a hurry and there is a better video of this
but this is the basic form or the ford engine that ran on the stirling principal
it ran 170 hp and was designed as a car engine
they shelved the idea in the seventies

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Z1LrmLHOUpg&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Z1LrmLHOUpg&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

seems to me that power to weight may or may not work out advantageously I need some time to work out and present some equations
but there would be significant advantages of such a system if it could be made to work

steam engine boilers explode from time to time
these things do not
makes me kinda give em a second look

I say problems are made to be solved
so lets crunch some numbers and see what the possibilities are and arent
Im late to a suprise party so gotta go
but
Ill post the equations later tonight and will try to resolve them over the next few days
best
B

ps
if a girl named Fanie tells you size isnt everything
you might want to listen

[Boston]

hmmmmm
a suggestion was made on another page to look into Tesla turbines
turns out they are steam or compressed air bladeless turbines easily constructed and with high efficiency with low cost
might have to place them at the top of the consideration list as generator motors

although a more complex engine the Stirling needs no steam to operate on it is ridiculously priced from Whispergen
at about 20,000 for a 850 for the 800 watt model

dam disappointing to see some fools trying to take advantage of the green movement by overpricing there gadgets like that

although a representative of the company said the following in regards to the criticism as posed by another

William S ********, I am afraid is showing some ignorance here due to his obviously steadfast grip on traditional generating technology. The DC (12 or 24V- not AC take note Mr Scott) WhisperGen is part of a heat and power system designed for marine leisure craft in the 30'to 60' size (monohull) It uses the DC "buffer" concept whereupon the main battery bank becomes the energy source for all electrical loads, AC and DC, and the WhisperGen replenishes the batteries when their capacity falls to a preset value. Its 70 Amp @ 12V output is more than enough to accomplish this. The only difference is the time taken in charging as against a loud, smelly AC genset with charger. We have around 400-500 units all over the world supplying all the energy needs for yachts of cruising size. A ample supply of piping hot water delivered while the unit is operating is an added and much appreciated advantage. AC gensets work on a peak power output while the WhisperGen works on a daily average. As far as economics are concerned, the unit is over 90% fuel efficient, around 0.7Lt of diesel per hr. The minimal maintenance required (5oo hour checkover as against oil and filter,etc every 50hrs makes the system decidely economic over a 2-3 year time frame. Do your homework before bad mouthing a superb piece of engineering Mr *********!

[PAR]

They're not taking advantage (Wispergen). These systems were well above the more conventional systems long before it was "stylish" or profitable to be green.

[Boston]

for $20,000 it had better dress nice and take me out to dinner

after looking at the tesla turbines I think it might be more advantageous to consider the Stirling generator first
it could easily be DIY and could use the same gen system as the vawt turbines first mentioned in one of the other threads
that would keep the boiler out of the picture completely and keep the electrical components standardized throughout the vessel
ist more complex to build than the T turbine but it eliminates the need for a boiler and it runs at slower rpm's which means less were and tear on associated components

[rasorinc]

Bos, why don't you write Ford about their engine requesting the engineering material and data and tell them what your trying to do.(convert it for Marine use)
Offer them a contract giving them some % if you are able to make a usuable end product. Ask for an engine. They have no use for them and if they might make a buck in the future, Why not? Just a Thought. PS be sure to build your frames out of Black Locust. Stan

[Fanie]

Matt, I don't know any specifics, all I know is what one of the guys here told me confidentially that was involved in the nuclear source development, and that was some years ago already. The philamons are scared they are going to be sterilized (another white plot) so as far as I know there is no one doing any development here any more. SA was the leaders in nuclear development at some stage. Now I don't even know if the place still exist. All capable whites get kicked out of their jobs and replaced.

Nuclear engines will be very economic to run. It's going to be one of the sustaiable energy sources of the future.

[Fanie]

Did someone say Ford ? I thought those old boat anchors were banned long ago :D

[rasorinc]

What I know is that the US took everything including studies, engineering and the rest was destroyed so nothing relating to Nuclear was left. Sort of like it was never there.
Fanie, FORD stands for Figure On Repairs Daily

[Fanie]

I thought it was First On the Rubbish Dump, then some smart ass came up with the argument that it was because it towed the Chevy there.
Needless to say we're not friends any more :D

You guys have nuclear driven ships. One of your war ships was here in SA a while back and that was nuclear driven. So was the russian sub the was here just prior to that. Probably a good thing they didn't get here at the same time... phew :D

[Boston]

Ras thats a great idea
I bet they do have schematics floating round somewhere and Ive always been surprised at some of the stuff Ive ended up getting just by asking the right people

one thing that struck me today was that the Stirling is more readily compatible as a generator power source which puts me right back at the beginning of this hole search for an alternative energy source

the swash plate cam on Fords Sterling design looks like a nightmare to manufacture

performance prediction method for Stirling engine

http://www.bekkoame.ne.jp/~khirata/academic/simple/simplee.htm

as I play with the calculator it becomes glaringly apparent that someones previous statement that the power to weight ratio of the Stirling engine is low
comes in as a dramatic understatement

[Boston]

back to sizing the Tesla turbine for low pressure steam

ps
I thought Ford was the anachronism of found on road dead

[rasorinc]

Send the letter to the VP of engine technology and engineering and ASK for an engine. You could do the same with Lear and their bus steam engine. Both engines I believe had problems with getting instant pressures up but that is not a problem with boats.

[Boston]

the engineless steam engine

http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn3321/dn3321-1_843.jpg



A revolutionary new steam engine, described by its inventors as "an underwater jet engine", may soon be powering dinghies and speedboats more efficiently, cleanly and safely than a conventional outboard motor.

The Pursuit Marine Drive produces thrust by using the energy from high-pressure steam to draw in water through an intake at the front and expel it at high speed through the rear. The steam emerges at high speed from a rearward-facing ring-shaped nozzle into a cone-shaped chamber, where it mixes with the water (see graphic). Shock waves created as the steam condenses are focused by the chamber to blast water out of the back.

The drive was invented by Australian engineer Alan Burns and developed in Britain by engineers at Pursuit Dynamics in Royston, Hertfordshire. Last week, New Scientist witnessed a version just 20 centimetres long develop around 30 horsepower (22 kilowatts) in a test tank, enough to power a speedboat. But the company says it can be scaled up to about 300 horsepower.

A crucial element of the design is that water flowing into the engine draws in air through a vent ahead of the steam jet. The air bubbles change the way the steam mixes with the water, and this significantly increases the engine's efficiency.

Pursuit Dynamics is keeping the details secret. "We know the answer," says Mike Todman, the company's chief technical officer, who was previously chief engineer with the marine engine division of Rolls-Royce. But he says it will not be revealed until patents are granted.

Steam for the drive is generated in a small boiler burning diesel or petrol. If the drive is being used to assist propulsion in a ship, the boiler can scavenge waste heat from conventional engines. It can be fed by seawater if necessary.

The boiler may be built from corrosion-proof materials, and if the steam flows fast enough it will blast out any other deposits. With no moving internal parts, and no propeller, the engine should be cheap to manufacture. It is also robust, and can easily cope if seaweed or rope are drawn into the inlet.

Water emerging from the engine is no more than 3 or 4 °C warmer than the water it draws in, so there is no danger of scalding. And as it does not leak oil like conventional outboards, and has no propeller that could injure large sea creatures, it should be less damaging to the environment.

The steam drive can also function as an extremely robust pump. It can shift water, sewage or oil, and in a demonstration for New Scientist, Todman shoved large quantities of lard and cardboard into the inlet without the pump suffering any ill effects. It could even mix materials used by the food industry. "It doesn't simply mix -- it macerates," says Todman.

Pursuit Dynamics itself does not plan to manufacture the engine. Instead, the company hopes by the end of the year to have licensed other manufacturers to make it.

[rasorinc]

Wow.....................keep Posting Everything You Find Bos. Most Interesting Thing I've Seen In A Long Time. SIMPLE PROCESS
Great find thank you/

[Fanie]

It can shift water, sewage or oil, and in ...
When the sh1t hits the fan so to speak... I bet there's a surge of power :D
That sounds promissing, alhough you still need an energy source to make the steam.

If that engine works then it will have a market for sure. I wonder if it's noisy.

[Boston]

I bet its screaming loud
those bubbles amplifying all that shock wave vibration up through the hull
which is kinda a cone shaped anyway
but
I bet it also would scream speed as well

[Fanie]

You'd have to make quite a bit of steam too...

Make sure the boat has a large coal draw, furnace, shovel and a boiler.

You'll have hot water though...

[Boston]

and its non recoverable so you have to start from cold rather than from 100C optimal condenser return temp

say what did I do wrong in this calculation of engine efficiency



seems the triple expansion steam engine is closing in on being the winner with maybe a bank of Tesla Turbine generators powering an electric engine running a distant second
the T turbines are unbelievably noisy according to everyone who mentions what they sound like
and Im after some peace and quiet
although it may be possible to balance the load with the input pressure to reduce the rpm sufficiently to eliminate the noise issue
but T turbines tend to develop hp and have low starting hp ( like nearly non existent )

I saw a performance chart for a test series of T turbines
a set of I think 15 plates spaced at .02 inches and 12 inch diameter at an unlisted working pressure resulting in 10,000 rpm yielded about 20 h
T turbines have varying efficiency claims from 60~90%



the efficiency of the steam engine is all about the condenser and single, double or triple expanding design
it takes 972 btu/lb to vaporize water at 100C
if the engine uses 1200 lbs of steam at max 1500 rpm and 125 hp then it takes 1,166,400 btus per hour to feed and produces at 125 hp or 318,000 btu
or 27.5% efficient for the reliable steam enigne companies single expansion 125 hp engine running a 100% efficient condenser
Im off to find a triple expansion engine

I think the goal needs to be to find an engine of at least 35% efficiency in order to keep the system on pace
or at least on pace to outperform diesel monetarily
from an environmental standing any carbon neutral energy outperforms a fossil fuel source

the diesels in the elco 57 flat top rebuild were 6BT5.9-m
at 1400 rpm had 134 hp and ate 2.7 gallons pr hour
134 hp = 746wx134 = 100,000 watts out and
2.7 gallons diesel contains 130,500 btu per gallon or 352.350 btu's ttl = 352,350 x 0.293 = 103,238 watts
100,000 watts out and 103,238 went in
dam I did something wrong
or these guys lied about there fuel consumption/power output
diesels typically have an efficiency of about 40% if I remember it and at best maybe 60

For an air standard engine with g = 1.4 , compression ratio rC = 15 and expansion ratio rE = 5, this gives an ideal diesel efficiency of 56%.

Engines using the Diesel cycle are usually more efficient, although the Diesel cycle itself is less efficient at equal compression ratios. Since diesel engines use much higher compression ratios (the heat of compression is used to ignite the slow-burning diesel fuel), that higher ratio more than compensates for the lower intrinsic cycle efficiency, and allows the diesel engine to be more efficient. The most efficient type, direct injection Diesels, are able to reach an efficiency of about 40% in the engine speed range of idle to about 1,800 rpm. Beyond this speed, efficiency begins to decline due to air pumping losses within the engine.

logic being that if the pellet fuel costs half as much the engine can be half as efficient before it becomes financially disadvantageous to use in place of diesel

ergo a diesel of 40~60% efficiency could be replaced with a steam engine of 20~30% efficiency run on pellets
the engine being considered having a max efficiency of about 27.5% with a return condenser temp of 100C

dam
looks like its working so far

so
why did the efficiency calculation of basic energy in and energy out not work when run from the industry provided numbers

this bit about steam turbines was interesting

Large output steam turbines equal or exceed the efficiency of the Diesel, which is one reason they are used for electric utility generating plants (the other reason is the greatly reduced maintenance requirement). The Stirling cycle engine has the highest efficiency of any thermal engine but it is more expensive to make and is not competitive with other types for normal commercial use.

[Frosty]

You'd have to make quite a bit of steam too...

Make sure the boat has a large coal draw, furnace, shovel and a boiler.

You'll have hot water though...

That will be a helluva outboard. But yeah but if the water coming out is only 4-5 degrees warmer than that going in where is the expansion to cause thrust that a jet --or underwater jet comes from? Sounds fishy to me.

[Boston]

apparently someone makes a Sterling generator

http://www.dekaresearch.com/stirling.shtml

and I have a link to a sterling powered car that is supposed to be out in the next few years and the owner of the company has been driving one as a test bed for the last six months or so

the bit about water temp I dont buy for an instant
but the design looks like it would work
I think it would be louder than a cheerleader on prom night
and eat steam like crazy
but seems like it would work

I had an idea instigated by an idea presented to me on a private message that Im dying to relay
but since it was not entirely self generated I need to hear back from my cohort in crime before I spill
it seams like a great idea though
Ill start a new thread with it when its more complete
B

[Rangerspeedboat]

Instead of that type of stirling engine you could go with a flame eater. Looks like it has more power to me.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/j4a08VHD6mY&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/j4a08VHD6mY&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Frosty]

But its just another piston in a cylinder with hot gasses driving it down and round again.

Cant you come up with something different? We have had this thing for 100 years.

[Rangerspeedboat]

Is there any way to make that underwater jet engine from common supplies.

I was thinking making it out of copper pipe, brass fittings, and washers.

Any other thoughts? I would love to have a 30 hp underwater jet engine, I would like to possibly make one smaller (possibly 10hp)

Is there a place to buy this engine? I did not find one.

[Boston]

the hydrodynamics would be somewhat lacking but it would probably work
although a static test would be advisable before you dump to much cash into the process

[Rangerspeedboat]

I figured that it would probably do something. I cant do it now but its now on the project list.

[Boston]

build a really small one as its bound to eat a lot of steam

thing is I have enough copper floating around here to do one myself
nice idea Ranger

Yogi out

[FAST FRED]

the diesels in the elco 57 flat top rebuild were 6BT5.9-m
at 1400 rpm had 134 hp and ate 2.7 gallons pr hour

Sounds like someone looked at the HP available graph , and the fuel consumption that the propeller (as usual set to pull max rated rpm) would require at the same engine speed.

2.7 gph is probably 55hp or so.

FF

[Jimbo1490]

Boston,

Given your rather broad def of 'carbon neutral', a diesel running on a veggie oil source is 'carbon neutral' and will actually emit less carbon and everything else than any steam except for maybe a turbine. So why not just go diesel with bio sourced fuel?

Jimbo

[Rangerspeedboat]

I think he wants the nostalgic part of a steam engine but the economical part of today. If you have a steam engine you will realise the reason for wanting a steam boat, there is just something about them.

Water and wood are VERY easy to come by, I'm not sure about used veggie oil.

[Boston]

while I appreciate the good intentions behind the suggestion Jim, Id think the availability and cost of pellets is quite stable, where as the cost and availability of diesel or bio diesel is tentative at best, also the ability to make my own is key with the unit to make pellets being about the size of a small generator and able to pound out 600 lb/hr using only wood chips, saw dust, tree trimmings, yard waste, corn stalks, there are countless types of options for making ones own pellets. making bio diesel is a bit more involved and the equipment more space consuming, also the availability is poor, I wonder if biodiesel has a life span like diesel.

pellets need only be kept dry and they will last forever in the hold

the steam engine definitely has a nostalgia aspect to it but its more than that
its silence while we steam along listening to Mozart
its the gently smell of wood smoke while Im on the back deck grilling up some buffalo and vegetables for the guests
instead of that obnoxious diesel smell
or the smell of stale french fries so commonly associated with bio diesel
and that dull droning sound

there is also the cost
the steam engine is simple has few moving parts and having build the sucker I can fix it at the drop of a hat ( and may need to ) the number of parts is less and what parts there are in the rotating assembly are from common sources not custom.

a diesel requires far more maintenance than the steam engine and is good for x number of hours. A properly maintained steam engine can last a hundred years and there are many examples of steam engines out there that have done exactly that

I want this thing to be serviceable, something I can always fix myself without to many special tools or set ups. I want it to outlive me by far and when the day arrives for me to get off the water Im going to give it to someone hoping they keep it going. I have no use in selling it off but if I find some kid at the dock who just loves all the carvings and bright work on that old steamer.
that kid might just wake up one day and find himself owning it
with one stipulation

he pass it on

[Rangerspeedboat]

Like you said steamers last for ever, mainly due to the low RPM and overall robust building techniques becuase of the amount of torque produced.

I was going to say that biodiesel wasnt easily avaiable but If i said it someone would correct me. Just my luck.

I like steam engines and how they work, just the moving parts in silence make it much eaiser to concentrate on how it works.

Also, if there is some sort of sound you know there is something wrong. Diesels may drown out the sound.

[Boston]

well Jim had it down when he said that biodiesel is more co2 neutral
basically the shorter the growing cycle of a photosynthesizing fuel source the more carbon friendly it is

another thing about steam is its regenerative
it only needs to be cooled to 99C to condense it at which temp it can be sent through the boiler again

I dont think bio diesel is all that available but I do know that it voids the warranty on car and truck engines
Ill bet its use would void the warranty on those Cumins diesels to
course they may have changed that since I last heard

[Rangerspeedboat]

You burn wood, the carbon is emmited. The plants take the carbon and make a tree. The tree is used for fuel, simple.

Is there a way to use salt water in the boiler?

[Boston]

no, there is a scaling issue in all mono tube boilers and it would eat the engine. Distilled water in a closed loop system with oil added is the way to fly, given the longevity of the engine it will facilitate, and the ease of maintenance, which is nearly none.