the steamless steam engine

Landlubber, heat output from a heat engine is directly inversely proportional to its efficiency. Energy in is energy out, so by and large and simplified, if it is not mechanical, it is thermal, whether that is due to friction or hot exhaust or cooling water/air. So if the IC is more efficient than the stirling, then what you say is true.
However closed systems such as stirling and all efficient steam engines, needs cooling of the medium, unlike the IC, which rejects most of the heat through exhaust. That can be a problem for the formers, in hot climate. Bigger or more power consuming cooling systems may be needed. On a boat however, this should be not a problem, since cold water is always available.

 

Peter Brow is designing a steam car. Here is what he wrote over at steamautomobile.com phorum. I bolded some text.

For anyone interested, here are a few pages on oil separators. http://www.stanleysteamers.com/paper...ATOR_FINAL.pdf
http://www.stanleymotorcarriage.com/...atorDesign.htm
And here is the centrifuge I mentioned, on a steam converted vw bug engine. Its surface area is like a coffee pot, and with modest insulation, such a one can be kept too hot to drink for a long time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOsEYpIQomE

By the way, the topic is "steamless steam engine" and the first post is about the Stirling and Ericsson cycles - it seems rather wide open but the target seems to be evaluating engines that can use carbon neutral fuel. Ideally some of that fuel is created onboard, by wind, waves or sun, if so, maybe ammonia generation would be worth investigating. Generation is much more wasteful than using batteries, but energy density is about half that of diesel, similar to wood. It can be used in heat engines or fuel cells, which might be more efficient. It would be interesting to know if converting the wood/biomass/biodiesel to hydrogen and using it in a fuel cell is more efficient than to utilise them in a heat engine...

 

Unfortunately that guy seems to have quite limited knowledge on the subject matter.
This for example is just wrong:

In a closed system like the Rankine cycle engine we are talkng now, even 1ppM s too much.
A wet steam system in our old Tugboats does accept that, no doubt.

The best sep. I have found and operated by so far is the combined baffles, cyclone, centrifugal separation.
The problem I pointed out, the energy loss, is a must! If the steam pressure/temperature is too high during separaton process, oil will pass the system as gas.

But you are right, we are a bit off topic now. And the Rankine cycle engine here is claimed to run without oil.

Regards
Richard

 

Ok. Harry Schoell claims the Cyclone is over 30% efficient. I remember the claim for one of the thermoacoustic electrical generators were about 30%. The latter two are more silent and simpler and hopefully require less maintenance and last longer. I don´t know much about fuel cells but according to wikipedia they are much more efficient.
I believe small turbines´ efficiency suck, but detonation and or combined cycle (waste heat recovery) may change this...
Detonation turbines: http://www.worldkar.com/html/turbinepower.html
http://www.ttengines.com/technology.html

 

Well, I think the SES engineer´s statements should be lent some credit. However, Schoell stated that on high temperature/efficiency engines the oil separation remains a problem and that they would not have continued development if they had not found a water-lubricated solution. IIRC the Cyclone runs at >2000 psi.

Is the separator you mention before the condenser?

I appreciate the discussion. I hope the thread starter feels free to shut us up or reiterate the desired topic if he wants to.

 

After condenser, the more common way. I never had a overheated steam system, so, cannot comment from first hand knowledge about them. But at 137bar we are not in that range with the Rankine engine. (Schöll)

I did not contradict the SES engineers, but what seems to be nice in one setup, is a catastrophe in the next. Just the difference between a old boiler and a renewed one can drive you nuts!
Steam propulsion is as complicated as nuclear power, although it does not look so.

Regards
Richard

 

Regarding power density, Schoell said:

"The MKV is rated at 100HP with high efficency numbers increasing the cutoff will increase the hp thus the power density but the efficency will drop. This is OK for exceleration but not for constant speed but this will easily beat an IC engine. The MKV weights in at about 340 lbs all up complete heat exchangers pumps blowers condencers and all controles It is 24" high and 28" in diameter. the engine for Chuks LSR car will have a double heat exchanger and run a slightly longer cutoff to increase the hp to 180hp. . It will be only semi condencing so it will still be almost the same height."

 

I have not got that last comment. What has semi condesing to do with height?

Yes, the relation between power density and efficiency is a finicky part in steam propulsion of recent generations.

I assume we will see some sort of a renaissance when these new developments grow mature.

Regards
Richard

 

I suppose the 180hp one is using the same condenser as the 100hp, so still same size, but can´t condense 180 hp worth of steam, so spills some of the water. Just a guess.

 

I'm not so sure about that. I have a friend who installed a solar hot water system and he gets near boiling water out of the collectors even on cloudy days and he's north of you (Whatcom Skagit border).

Tesla turbines can be super loud, but the one I saw was running at something like 11,000 RPM.

I was toying the other day with the idea of using a Tesla turbine in place of a paddle wheel in a small multi-hull boat. Does anyone see why that wouldn't work?

 

Hello to all,

since it has been quite some time ago when this thread petered out, allow me to put some coal on the fire (!?) and suggest the following outlandish idea;

Scroll down a bit on the page and you will find a steam generating rocket.
There must be some way we can make this work under a boat, after all, torpedoes run on the same stuff!

http://www.tecaeromex.com/ingles/RH-i.htm

The propellant expands by 5000 times after passing through the catalyst. 197hp from such a small rocket is quite something. Either use it underwater or in combination with the cold-section of a turbine engine?

Let me know what you think.

H'donkey.

 

hey Honkey that's pretty cool

 

Thanks Boston,

as they say, there is no replacement for replacement I'm well impressed with his workmanship. Btw here is the link to the inner workings of a H2O2 powered Swedish torpedo, it gets interesting from 3:02.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3hLwTPq3hc

Lets make this work!

Happy landings,

H'donkey.

 

Look at what seabirdship is doing. His thread is the one about hybrid pulse DC something in this same forum. He's using 90% H2O2 and waste motor oil for a very innovative propulsion system.