Novel Engine

[DaS Energy]

During the 18th Centuary the British Navy trialed a piston engine needing no Coal heat only air and water temperature. This engine had the working fluid Ammonia copying the action of a Steam piston engine but without the heat.

Air temperature being enough to boil off the Ammonia into gas and water temperature enough to convert the gas back into liquid.

Street cars of the same period used the same engine except they used coal for heating.

Today the ammonia has been replaced with that highly versitile refrigerant Carbon Dioxide.

The advantages of Co2 over Ammonia is its lower boiling temperature and greater energy at any heat.

The Open Technology being designed in Australia and free for copy.

The intriguing thing being the piston is liquid and the crankshaft a hydro turbine fully recycle the same as the working gas.

Power output is in wattage. This is calculated by one litre of gas flow per second at 9 bar pressure produces 720 watts increase in one or both increases wattage output.

1 litre recycling engine at 60 RPM and Co2 temperature of 100* Celsius produces 800Kw.

The attached engineering is for most ecconomical use of heat given Co2 which realy comes into its own above 30* Celsius. However any temperature above minus 10* Celsius provides full operation.

Persons wishing to know more of the Co2 heat working ranges can obtain much by Web search Co2 pressure to temperature both Critical and Supercritical.

Happy to supply all we have on ease of building.

Should someone be able to guid how to get image to appear in post I would be most happy. Alternate can be sent direct to E-mail adress.

Fair Sailing

Peter

[CDK]

Lots of constructions have been tried out in the early engineering days.
Some were good and are still in everyday use, like the internal combustion engine. Some were useful for specific purposes, like the steam engine.
And some were virtually useless, like the low temperature ammonia engine and the sterling engine. But they keep on surfacing from time to time.

To post your papers, go to "advanced", then scroll down to "manage attachments".

[DaS Energy]

Hello CDK,

Thank you for your help.

I am no engineer so please forgive how I speak.

By the looks of it I have got the DaS Valve across but not sure how to make size bigger for you, I am a babe in the woods when it comes to computers.

That shown is later work away from combustion and uses heated Co2, however no design changes occur except turbine shaft remains smooth.

The pricipal of workings is gas build up or combustion in top of pipe A drives the water out through a recycle hydro turbine.

When the gasses reached the bottom of pipe A they cross over to B and rise to the top displacing water, which lowers the tennis ball blocking the exhaust hole.

The top of pipe C is lower in pipe A than B this is so no gas pocket can get trapped as the pipes refill. The length of pipe C must be such that it does no blow clear early or power loss will occur, and if too long it wont clear propperly and not let all gas out as the pipes refill.

Combustion is by compression with the fuel and water coming in together, and a DaS worm compressor carved into the turbine shaft supplying air to combustion pressure is reached, its continuance of air supply at all time is of no consequence.

The extra attachment is a stand alone turbine without the DaS Valve self activating at temperatures above minus 5* Celsius.

Starting to get the hang of picture sizing, thanks again for that.

Both piston and turbine model when using Co2 supply their own cooling by Co2 behaviour when depressurising.

Turbine came from reading up on "Einstein" absorption fridge.

From point of boil off to restrictor plate orifice is a huge gas pressure build up. So rather than force the gas through a tiny hole to strip off the pressure I stuck in a micro gas turbine.

Hope to have been of some help.

Cheers

Peter

[daiquiri]

Anyways, it cannot exceed the ideal Carnot efficiency, which is given by:
eff = 1 - Tc/Th
where Tc is the temperature of the cold heat sink, Th is the temprature of the hot heat source, both in Kelvins T(K) = T(°C) + 273.16 .
so (example), for:
Tc = 15 °C = 288.16 K
Th = 100 °C = 373.16 K
the ideal efficiency is 0.23, or 23%. The real efficiency will be much lower, due to various losses. Perhaps some 70-80% of the ideal efficiency, which means 16-18% overall. Give it even 19-20%, if you want to be hyper-optimistic. It means that, provided the cycle really works, in order to obtain 800 kW of mechanical power, you'd need to feed the engine with 4000 kW of thermal power.

It is still a far cry from common modern marine diesels, which can have 40% (and more) efficiency.

[Stumble]

Daiquiri,

I at least have just started looking at thermal engines so am by no means and expert, but here is how I envision such a system working.

1) One or two diesel engines sized as main propulsion engines to drive the boat.
2) Thermal engines using the exhaust and cooling heal to drive a thermal engine attached to a generator.

My theory at this point is that the thermal engines should be able to work without placing additional demand on the propulsion engines, and this scavanging of heat energy could then be used to increase the overall efficiency of the system, despite low efficiencies in their primary operation.

In a specific case for instance Twin 450hp engines should (according to one manufacturers claims) generate enough electricity from heat energy to power all of the house loads on a 60' power cruiser. This would allow removing of the installed generator (though additional battery power may be called for, to allow running the systems at anchor).

If this system works as I envision it, the heat engines specific efficiency isn't to much of a concern since otherwise the power would have been wasted.

[CDK]

Originally Posted by Stumble

If this system works as I envision it, the heat engines specific efficiency isn't to much of a concern since otherwise the power would have been wasted.

No one will contradict that Stumble.

But what if the thermal engine costs several times more than a comparable generator, needs a lot of service or takes up several times the space? Mind you, I don't say it will, but there must be a decision point, beyond which commercial success is doubtful.

[Stumble]

CDK,

Your points are well made. I approach this problem as a series of trade offs (as with most issues). One one hand there is a very well proven technology with known efficiency numbers, cost, size, noise, maintenance, ect... On the other is at least for me an unknown system with minimal practical experience in the real world.

As I go through exploring a new technology or system I try to answer the following questions:

1) What is the system capable of doing.
2) What of my expectations initially does is it not capable of
3) What is the installed price of the system
4) Does the system require/allow any drastic reworking of installed systems
5) What specific maintenance issues are raised (odd or unusual necessities)
6) What general maintenance issues will be ongoing
7) Will there be any changes to the basic operation of the boat (good or bad)

[DaS Energy]

It is still a far cry from common modern marine diesels, which can have 40% (and more) efficiency.[/quote]


Hello Daiguri,

Manufactures of turbines such as Toshiba Steam do have a problem with your understunding Turbine efficiency is below that of piston and crankshaft energy conversion.

Begining at 80% efficiency and increasing probably because there is no crankshaft, no piston, no rings, no fuel pumps, no injector pump, no valves no valve lifters, no top cam, no chains belts or pullies, no oil pump, and funnily enough driven by internal combustion with supplies not only combustion energy but the heat goes directly to heat Co2, which compared to steam is 10,000 bar pressure at 100*Celsius and steam is 1.

Energy conversion rate is 1 litre flow per second at 9 bar pressure generates 720 watts.

Cheers

Peter

[daiquiri]

Originally Posted by DaS Energy

Manufactures of turbines such as Toshiba Steam do have a problem with your understunding Turbine efficiency is below that of piston and crankshaft energy conversion.

Hello,
I really don't think that guys at Toshiba Steam have any problems with concepts of gas-turbine efficiency or Carnot efficiency, and with their calculation. It is not mather of my or their understanding. It's a matter of thermodynamics, which is like math - doesn't depend on personal opinions.
I've re-read the description of the machine and see now that there is a phase-change involved in this cycle, so I'll try to carve out few numbers tomorrow, since it's 2.00 a.m. here now. Then we'll have a clearer picture about what we are dealing with here.
Cheers

[CDK]

Originally Posted by DaS Energy

Begining at 80% efficiency and increasing probably because there is no crankshaft, no piston, no rings, no fuel pumps, no injector pump, no valves no valve lifters, no top cam, no chains belts or pullies, no oil pump, and funnily enough driven by internal combustion with supplies not only combustion energy but the heat goes directly to heat Co2, which compared to steam is 10,000 bar pressure at 100*Celsius and steam is 1.

So far you've only shown us two very incomplete diagrams and an incomprehensible description.
Unless you forgot to mention some key elements, I do not see how your contraption could work.
There is also something wrong with your numbers: 10,000 bars (10 tons @ sq.cm.) is a pressure you cannot reach by compressing a gas because it will change state long before that. You could reach such pressures in liquids, but the pressure would drop immediately if some fluid is allowed to escape, so for generation of power it cannot be used in any calculation.

[DaS Energy]

Hello CDK

The drawings are complete in full. Cardinal of engineering, "Keep It simple."

Co2 beyound + 31.2* Celsius will not liquify no matter what the pressure.

Co2 released from pressure converts directly to Dry- Ice - 40* Celsius.

Lots on the net about Co2.

Cheers

Peter

[DaS Energy]

Hello CDK

The drawings are complete in full. Cardinal of engineering, "Keep It simple."

Co2 beyound + 31.2* Celsius will not liquify no matter what the pressure.

Co2 released from pressure converts directly to Dry- Ice - 40* Celsius.

Can some one please help on how to transfer files when replying thanks.

Lots on the net about Co2. See Critical Co2 and Supercritical Co2

Cheers

Peter

[CDK]

Originally Posted by DaS Energy

Co2 beyound + 31.2* Celsius will not liquify no matter what the pressure.

Co2 released from pressure converts directly to Dry- Ice - 40* Celsius.

Can some one please help on how to transfer files when replying thanks.

Lots on the net about Co2. See Critical Co2 and Supercritical Co2

Yes, I knew that without the internet already. It makes your "engine" even weirder.

You already know how to transfer files because you attached your diagrams. Other file formats can be transferred in the same fashion.

What is your background (occupation, education)?

[daiquiri]

Hello,
Do you have any link to some site where more technical info can be found? I agree with CDK that the data shown so far are at best confusing.
Cheers

[DaS Energy]

Thank you, had problems, mind not so hot anymore, started thinking advanced was something I should not go near. Computers are not my thing, they get me into trouble.

Background is sheep and wheat. Education was little schooling as possible, hideous places.

Cheers

Peter

Originally Posted by CDK

Yes, I knew that without the internet already. It makes your "engine" even weirder.

You already know how to transfer files because you attached your diagrams. Other file formats can be transferred in the same fashion.

What is your background (occupation, education)?