Liquid Air Engine

[Boston]

Ron you totally misunderstood what I'd said.

[RonL]

Originally Posted by Boston

Ron you totally misunderstood what I'd said.

Good morning Boston,
Like replied to Frosty on his thread, there seems to be such a loss of feeling, and the conveying of those things that we hear or see, when engaged in a conversation of some kind,in person as opposed to the internet.

I assume you mean the collection of moisture, would that be right ?

I too am bewildered at what I think should be at least a little clear, that a completely inside the tank system of mechanical operation, should be so hard for people to visualize.
My poor ability to choose the best words and proper terms can cause confusion, I am well aware of this and keep thinking, maybe if I say it like this it will be clearer.

I would love to keep trying to find the right thought presentation, but also know that some people really shut down quickly.
I have close friends that say they can't grasp some things I have tried to explain (not this system) the hard part for me is they will say "we don't even want to know".
I still cherish their friendship, we fish together and do woodwork things, but now as we poke fun at each other, it's a big laugh when I say "don't get me started".
Most of what I say is from my observations first hand, I study in order to try and find validation of what I have in my visual mind. If something has never been done before in a certain manner, I don't expect to find anything in a book.

I have described a method that absorbs every thermal loss, back into it's own driving force.
Why so hard to comprehend ? I am vain enough to think just maybe I have found a way to turn friction losses into a recycled heat source. Obviously this has not been done before.

Hope this does not sound offensive, that would make me very sad.

RonL

[RonL]

Originally Posted by CDK

Funny, Google says there is no ebook available, which cannot be true because 142 "publishers" offer the print-on-demand book for $15-20 plus postage so they all got the file for free. Copyright should not apply for a book that was printed in 1919!

Hi CDK,
It might require a Google account if you do not have one, I did have trouble getting to an option of download, I'll have to go back and retrace my steps.

I would just link to the pdf file I have, but I'm not sure if it might be a violation in some other country. I really don't understand international rights so well.

Let me know if you can't get downloaded.

RonL

[CDK]

Made a Google account, activated it, signed in, but Google still says the ebook doesn't exist, so there is nothing to download.
I am in a country where they probably even don't have a word for "copyright", if you are afraid to violate something, you could send me the link by PM.

[DCockey]

Originally Posted by RonL

.....

I have described a method that absorbs every thermal loss, back into it's own driving force.
Why so hard to comprehend ? I am vain enough to think just maybe I have found a way to turn friction losses into a recycled heat source. Obviously this has not been done before.

Hope this does not sound offensive, that would make me very sad.

RonL

Sounds like you believe you've found a way to beat at least the second and probably the first laws of thermodynamics. For such claims in the past this has usually been the result of either not having a truly closed system or of neglecting the temperature differences required for heat transfer. Perhaps you should find someone with some expertise in thermodynamics to analyze your ideas.

[RonL]

Originally Posted by DCockey

Sounds like you believe you've found a way to beat at least the second and probably the first laws of thermodynamics. For such claims in the past this has usually been the result of either not having a truly closed system or of neglecting the temperature differences required for heat transfer. Perhaps you should find someone with some expertise in thermodynamics to analyze your ideas.

Thanks that is a very kind reply,
I do not think it beats the laws, but rather, brings to the fullest truth, what they say.

RonL

[RonL]

Originally Posted by DCockey

Perhaps you should find someone with some expertise in thermodynamics to analyze your ideas.

Hello again DCockey,

I felt need to say a little about this, one main reason I have put my thoughts on a forum such as this and not looking for anything more than the satisfaction of someone with good knowledge and the resources to validate my speculations, (of which I am pretty confident that it does not have a very detrimental basic flaw) goes to the few times in the past when I had a little more flexible cash flow, a few attempts were non productive, the last (and less complicated in design) had a results of paying an expensive price to an attorney that stated he did not understand it's function and that it would not make it through the Patent Office first look, I was advised to produce a working prototype, or have a licensed engineering firm validate the design. I made this effort and was given an estimate of $30,000 or possibly more (just the evaluation), as it would require the services of at least six different engineering specialties and still no indication of a positive results. (that initial conference lasted 3hours and involved three of the partners). They in fact seemed very interested, not a hint they might have been playing me.

I hope I have gotten a bit wiser, than in those times, for many reasons I recognize why this is just too big a bite for me to take.
I would just love to see some success for a design that has consumed the better part of my creative life.

Again thanks for your comment

RonL

[Boston]

I'm not sure how you keep missing it but

It doesn't work

Basic thermodynamics means that if you have to put more energy into producing the fuel than you get out of it then

It doesn't work.

You need an energy source to compress the air. Then you need an energy source to transport the air. Then you need to develop the infrastructure to distribute the air. Then you need a radical overhaul of every engine out there that want's to use your fuel. Then you need to resolve the condensation issues, a giant block of ice under the hood is kinda hard to work on. And you've still ignored the issues of carrying a bomb around in the car. In a nut shell thats not gong to work either. Just ask the insurance industry about propane conversions.

I'm not sure how you could possibly be missing the consistency in the feed back but

It doesn't work

Read back through the thread and then maybe get back to us by addressing each issue. Simply insisting it works doesn't get it on a design and engineering site.

Just because someone developed a test bed engine doesn't mean they tackled any of the other problems. For instance, go price a 3000psi Tank ( more like 4000psi if you want any kinda of safety margin ) and then price filling it with liquid air. If its more than about $40 your on the loosing end already. figure out the BTU potential and then compare that to the same volume of diesel. Things should be getting clearer once you've done that first exorcise. Then maybe compare the costs of the two different engines. If your still thinking it works, get back to us and lets check those numbers

some very bright people have tried to explain it over these last few pages
Ignoring there concerns isn't going to get you any closer to the goal than you are now.

[WestVanHan]

Originally Posted by CDK

Made a Google account, activated it, signed in, but Google still says the ebook doesn't exist, so there is nothing to download.
I am in a country where they probably even don't have a word for "copyright", if you are afraid to violate something, you could send me the link by PM.

CDK here ya go...in plain text but no charts/pix...the pdf won't work:


http://www.archive.org/stream/liquid...69mbp_djvu.txt

[RonL]

Originally Posted by Boston

I'm not sure how you keep missing it but

It doesn't work

Basic thermodynamics means that if you have to put more energy into producing the fuel than you get out of it then

It doesn't work.

You need an energy source to compress the air. Then you need an energy source to transport the air. Then you need to develop the infrastructure to distribute the air. Then you need a radical overhaul of every engine out there that want's to use your fuel. Then you need to resolve the condensation issues, a giant block of ice under the hood is kinda hard to work on. And you've still ignored the issues of carrying a bomb around in the car. In a nut shell thats not gong to work either. Just ask the insurance industry about propane conversions.

I'm not sure how you could possibly be missing the consistency in the feed back but

It doesn't work

Read back through the thread and then maybe get back to us by addressing each issue. Simply insisting it works doesn't get it on a design and engineering site.

Just because someone developed a test bed engine doesn't mean they tackled any of the other problems. For instance, go price a 3000psi Tank ( more like 4000psi if you want any kinda of safety margin ) and then price filling it with liquid air. If its more than about $40 your on the loosing end already. figure out the BTU potential and then compare that to the same volume of diesel. Things should be getting clearer once you've done that first exorcise. Then maybe compare the costs of the two different engines. If your still thinking it works, get back to us and lets check those numbers

some very bright people have tried to explain it over these last few pages
Ignoring there concerns isn't going to get you any closer to the goal than you are now.

OK Boston, I'll give it another shot.
First, I switched horses and I was concerned about changing liquid type, I brought that up and Brian said basically "why not". I kept a little in line to the thread, by supplying information about Liquid Air and how this can be produced on a small scale for small application. there are a vast number of ways to accumulate and apply large amounts of power in short time frames that can produce a product of this nature.
I expressed my reasons for not using Liquid Air or Nitrogen as motor activation methods.
Hence I proposed a system based on using propane liquid and gas, that are in containment and re-circulation on a continual basis, never needing to be replenished. A one time purchase. I have made a few comments that reflected a change of design and agree some might have lost sight of my thoughts. So I will try to stay on the same thing start to finish.

So here goes.

First thing, lets use a 500 gallon propane tank, just as example....we put 50 gallons in the tank, pay the price for that liquid. It will stay in the tank forever if the valve is not opened.....for general opinion most would agree it is stupid, when I paint the tank flat black and have it in full sun, I'm sure you have some idea what pressure will develop....I am confident to declare 130* F here in Texas, might be close to accurate, which will give a pressure build up in the tank close to 257 psi.
What volume is still liquid and how much gas in the larger space ? now just to make a point.....we install a regulator set to 100 psi, we connect a long hose to some air tool with some spark-less load (make this a remote location and safe distance from anything) we are going to waste some gas here to prove a point.
Open the tank valve and that air tool will perform as well as if compressed air is being used. Load and size of the tool will govern how long the tank will supply a working volume of pressurized gas, the tank will get colder, quicker than an air system (but that comes much later) you can calculate just how much energy was transformed into work, this was just from what came from sunshine heat.

The system I have tried to describe, takes this entire action inside a sealed tank where no propane is moved outside the sealed tank, that will come later when more thermal absorbing area is needed.

How to set up the discharge of high pressure gas volume, into something that can accept it which is also inside that same tank, is simply a certain volume coiled pipe that has one or more expander plumed into that coil. As I mentioned 30 cubic feet of volume is a comfortable fit and still leave room for all the supporting equipment. This pipe will need a pressure relief valve ( assume 100 psi down to 50 psi working range) at the high pressure inlet and a low pressure check valve at the lower end. (flapper or ball ) Anytime the low pressure end exceeds tank pressure by even the slightest amount, there will be a discharge back into the tank liquid.

When the tank is filled to whatever quantity is designed for the system, the initial pressure will be low or zero. The pressure and check valves will seal the coiled pipe, keeping it's pressure low, as the pressure increases in the main tank, this buildup of pressure is free as it is solar thermal heating.

For a really slow cycle, let the sun warm the tank and when 100 psi is reached the pressure will release through the relief valve, and will start flowing through the expansion motor(s) this work is used in some form (designer choice) the gas exhausted will be cooler and expanded in direct relation to that work performance. The exhaust from that unit will still possess some energy that performs work through another expander and through as many as needed to extract as much energy as possible.

The last unit in series actually becomes a compression unit (design size will vary), it draws it power from the same shaft that received work from all the previous units. At this point the gas will be expanded to a large amount and depleted of heat based on previous work of the expander units. If a large portion of the coiled pipe is submerged in tank liquid and if tank pressure has fallen to 50 psi, the liquid temperature should be close to 30* F, at this point any condensed liquid in the pipe will be pushed out into the main tank.

A portion of work should be in rotation of a heavy flywheel and will, if needed, be used in this compression process.

At this point the system will be basically depleted and start a somewhat slow pressure buildup for another cycle. There should be residual heat in the rotating equipment, due to friction and will move in accordance to internal temperatures, other division of that first cycle energy burst, would likely be split by some amount into, flywheel rotation, some electrical quantity to battery storage and some to the compression of the cooler expanded gas.

All this is a free running cycle based on thermal heating from the sun, not very useful in comparison to setup cost of the system. Setting it in the ocean water and using more internal propane liquid, will produce quicker cycles at a little lower pressures (?) but they happen 24 hours a day.

Increasing temperature delta using electric generated heat and flywheel assisted expansion of gas, would allow the used of heat exchangers to absorb more thermal energy from the waters a boat is floating in. This is also where storage of hot and cold quantities of antifreeze liquid can lever the magnitude of cycle strength. Electric can only create a larger delta, but storage can be any amount based on mass of flywheels and liquids, along with battery supplying power to mostly utilities and maybe some additional motor power.

The design requirements can be as varied as shoe sizes and shapes, so this should bare testimony to why an old man on retirement income might be shy to tackle a job that even though clear in the mind, is far beyond calculation ability.

All things in motion at the same time, every pressure and temperature in a constant change of measurement as speeds increase or decrease, the magnitude of adjustment factors is overwhelming, the most solid and dependable factor is that of balance between heat absorbed and work dispensed in application or storage.

Energy and heat can be wasted, but only after it is moved out of the tank system.
The simplest thing I can say, is that a tank completely sealed and all energy transferring, mechanical and electrical rotating parts are inside the cold sink.

The best I can do until I try again.

RonL

[Boston]

Sorry there Ron but thats pure horse pucky if I ever saw it.

classic perpetual motion machine is what your describing and it just doesn't work no mater how much sunshine hits it.

the sterling engine is about the best thermal difference machine we've got and its ability to do work is seriously lacking.

You might want to go study up on that one and then try again

I give it two thumbs down, that last was pure gobbledygook

Cheers
B

Basically the energy you spent compressing the gas isn't fully recovered in using it. So your system can only be a net loss, what makes your system really bad is that your trying to use the thermal characteristics of the phase change in a way that wastes even more energy. So the fuel does even less work. Not more. Read up on refrigeration and the sterling engine. Then try it again

B

[RonL]

Originally Posted by Boston

Sorry there Ron but thats pure horse pucky if I ever saw it.

classic perpetual motion machine is what your describing and it just doesn't work no mater how much sunshine hits it.

the sterling engine is about the best thermal difference machine we've got and its ability to do work is seriously lacking.

You might want to go study up on that one and then try again

I give it two thumbs down, that last was pure gobbledygook

Cheers
B

Well, thanks for looking and giving your opinion,

However I did not see a valid reason why you think it will not work, just because it has always been denied is not enough.

Most Stirling engines are heated like my spa heater, most of the fire heat just slides upward into the atmosphere.

If it is wrong it would have to be my misunderstanding the temperature of the exhausted gas from the expander's outlet. I have air tools that spit ice out of the exhaust under lengthy spin time.

Is the gas condition as it exits the motor/expansion unit not a reflection of work by the unit under a load, putting a spin into a shaft/flywheel???

Again thanks for answering, it's better than silence.

[gonzo]

The liquid engine works on stored energy. Not counting the cost of storing that energy is the only way to claim it is efficient. It is like a wind up engine. If you don't count the energy required to wind up the spring, it is using no energy and has zero emmisions. The claims are based on flawed logic. @RonL: the arguments are not so much about the merits of the engine, but about the failure to account for all the energetic expenditure to make it run.

[RonL]

Originally Posted by gonzo

The liquid engine works on stored energy. Not counting the cost of storing that energy is the only way to claim it is efficient. It is like a wind up engine. If you don't count the energy required to wind up the spring, it is using no energy and has zero emmisions. The claims are based on flawed logic. @RonL: the arguments are not so much about the merits of the engine, but about the failure to account for all the energetic expenditure to make it run.

Thanks gonzo,

I'm really confused why no one seems to see the gas pressure in the propane tank, as an equal to the pressure in a conventional tank of compressed air that did require more energy from the grid and the return of work maybe 1/5.
The propane pressures up without any assist on my part, finding the best hot spot is my biggest challenge.

It certainly won't work near the poles, but anywhere you can find 70* F or more you will get a 100 psig or more buildup, no help needed it pulls in it's own heat.

I will keep trying to find my mistake, if in fact I'm seeing something that is not there.

Thanks gonzo,

RonL

[Boston]

thats because you have a fundamental misunderstanding of Boils laws