1 Steam Cars : Phorum
General Steam Car topics
Petitjean's Patentable Hot Head Engine
Posted by: William L. Petitjean, P.E. (IP Logged)
Date: August 11, 2002 06:03AM
<HTML>I have just logged onto this website for the first time tonight and am intrigued with all the very good technical content. Chuck Williams gave me the URL and I have also been corresponding with David Nergaard on my new steam cylinder oil. I will post more on my new line of steam engine oils in a few days.
James Crank and Bill Sheen were discussing modern steam automobile power plants in July and I would like to propose a radically different type of engine for automobile use. It is too late to get too specific tonight but I am curious about how much interest there is. I mentioned this engine to Mr. Nergaard several days ago but he has not had a chance to respond yet.
I worked for Skinner Engine Company in the early 1980's as Sales Manager -- Steam Engines and sold the last stationary unaflow steam engine built in America. I left in 1983 and have spent considerable time on and off trying to develop an engine that progresses beyond their very good unaflow designs.
I finally settled on a hot head, boilerless concept several years ago and have done very little with it since then. I feel it has significant patentable content so can't get too specific because I have not filed any disclosures yet and don't want to start the filing deadline clock running just yet.
This engine utilizes standard propane burners to heat an alloy iron head to high temperatures. The correct amount of water is superheated and injected into the cylinder where it flashes to steam and creates an indicator card much like a diesel or high compression steam engine -- banana shaped.
The exhaust is released at 90% stroke through cylinder ports into the crankcase where it is condensed with a jet type condenser. This means the crankcase is purposely wet and creates a low absolute pressure. Since the engine is valveless we can easily operate at 5% or 10% cutoff for very high efficiency (on the order of diesel engine efficiency). But, we can easily stretch the cutoff out to get enormous overloads for starting, hill climbing etc.
Since we are not admitting steam through a traditional valve we have eliminated a big impediment to high speeds and we can easily operate at 1800 rpm. This means a 3" x 3" engine will produce around 15 or 20 hp per cylinder. A nice balanced, in-line 3 cylinder engine could easily power most passenger cars.
The wet crankcase means we have to pump water through the lubrication galleries into proprietary plastic bearings. Such an arrangement makes it quite easy to drive right by the Jiffy lube emporiums because there is no oil on board! In fact I envision stationary versions in off grid power plants where you fill the tank with distilled water, feed it natural gas or propane and walk away from it for about one year before servicing it.
The short cutoff, high efficiency can readily achieve the low water rates Mr. Crank has suggested are necessary, thus a simple air/to water radiator can sufficiently subcool the cooling water that gets pumped out of the crankcase jet condenser so there is almost no make up requirement.
A simple economiser in the burner casings can improve overall cycle efficiency by putting most of the sensible heat into the water injection loop ahead of the injector.
I have wrestled with steam engines and boilers for most of the last 35 years and this is my magnum opus. While it discards the traditional boiler it is really does not have a whole lot of rocket science. It just borrows something from the Rankine cycle, something from the Diesel cycle and something from the Sterling cycle. It is incredibly simple -- it has only three moving parts, the crankshaft, connecting rod and piston. It also has an injector that is akin to diesel injectors with water friendly materials. Add a few support pumps and simple cutoff and temperature sensing burner controls like home furnaces use and you have yourself an automotive power plant than can achieve diesel automobile fuel mileages with about 10% as many moving parts and no vibrations.
I would like to build a prototype before I die an old man, but like many of you I am playing a rich man's game on a poor man's salary. I learned a long time ago that these kind of wild ideas just age people prematurely so I am interested in finding like minded people who might want to pool resources to prove that Skinner's design pinnicle really is not the end of steam engine progress -- there is a lot of hidden promise in this venerable cycle that can solve a lot of today's heat engine and environmental problems.
Any takers out there?
Bill Petitjean</HTML>
James Crank and Bill Sheen were discussing modern steam automobile power plants in July and I would like to propose a radically different type of engine for automobile use. It is too late to get too specific tonight but I am curious about how much interest there is. I mentioned this engine to Mr. Nergaard several days ago but he has not had a chance to respond yet.
I worked for Skinner Engine Company in the early 1980's as Sales Manager -- Steam Engines and sold the last stationary unaflow steam engine built in America. I left in 1983 and have spent considerable time on and off trying to develop an engine that progresses beyond their very good unaflow designs.
I finally settled on a hot head, boilerless concept several years ago and have done very little with it since then. I feel it has significant patentable content so can't get too specific because I have not filed any disclosures yet and don't want to start the filing deadline clock running just yet.
This engine utilizes standard propane burners to heat an alloy iron head to high temperatures. The correct amount of water is superheated and injected into the cylinder where it flashes to steam and creates an indicator card much like a diesel or high compression steam engine -- banana shaped.
The exhaust is released at 90% stroke through cylinder ports into the crankcase where it is condensed with a jet type condenser. This means the crankcase is purposely wet and creates a low absolute pressure. Since the engine is valveless we can easily operate at 5% or 10% cutoff for very high efficiency (on the order of diesel engine efficiency). But, we can easily stretch the cutoff out to get enormous overloads for starting, hill climbing etc.
Since we are not admitting steam through a traditional valve we have eliminated a big impediment to high speeds and we can easily operate at 1800 rpm. This means a 3" x 3" engine will produce around 15 or 20 hp per cylinder. A nice balanced, in-line 3 cylinder engine could easily power most passenger cars.
The wet crankcase means we have to pump water through the lubrication galleries into proprietary plastic bearings. Such an arrangement makes it quite easy to drive right by the Jiffy lube emporiums because there is no oil on board! In fact I envision stationary versions in off grid power plants where you fill the tank with distilled water, feed it natural gas or propane and walk away from it for about one year before servicing it.
The short cutoff, high efficiency can readily achieve the low water rates Mr. Crank has suggested are necessary, thus a simple air/to water radiator can sufficiently subcool the cooling water that gets pumped out of the crankcase jet condenser so there is almost no make up requirement.
A simple economiser in the burner casings can improve overall cycle efficiency by putting most of the sensible heat into the water injection loop ahead of the injector.
I have wrestled with steam engines and boilers for most of the last 35 years and this is my magnum opus. While it discards the traditional boiler it is really does not have a whole lot of rocket science. It just borrows something from the Rankine cycle, something from the Diesel cycle and something from the Sterling cycle. It is incredibly simple -- it has only three moving parts, the crankshaft, connecting rod and piston. It also has an injector that is akin to diesel injectors with water friendly materials. Add a few support pumps and simple cutoff and temperature sensing burner controls like home furnaces use and you have yourself an automotive power plant than can achieve diesel automobile fuel mileages with about 10% as many moving parts and no vibrations.
I would like to build a prototype before I die an old man, but like many of you I am playing a rich man's game on a poor man's salary. I learned a long time ago that these kind of wild ideas just age people prematurely so I am interested in finding like minded people who might want to pool resources to prove that Skinner's design pinnicle really is not the end of steam engine progress -- there is a lot of hidden promise in this venerable cycle that can solve a lot of today's heat engine and environmental problems.
Any takers out there?
Bill Petitjean</HTML>
Re: Petitjean's Patentable Hot Head Engine
Posted by: John Winter (IP Logged)
Date: August 13, 2002 12:34AM
<HTML>Looking forward to the discusion that I hope will follow this interesting post. Thank for the post Bill.</HTML>
Re: Petitjean's Patentable Hot Head Engine
Posted by: Mike Clark (IP Logged)
Date: August 13, 2002 09:21AM
<HTML>Bill,
What a cunning plot - it triggered something in the back of my mind so I rooted through old copies of Light Steam Power to find in the September October 1969 issue a writeup of a boilerless steam engine.
In this machine water was fed through the side of an inverted cylinder into an annular groove around the piston to drop into a pool of molten lead(!) sitting in the cylinder head which was heated from below. A side port allowed the escape of exhaust steam unaflow fashion. The piston acted through a conrod to the crankshaft located on top of the cylinder.
This engine was proposed by R Seaton Taylor in 1911 and the 1969 article was a reprint of his ideas. Seaton Taylor was just putting up an idea and does not appear to have made it although he mentioned experimenting dropping water into molten lead and finding less spheroidal globules than on solid surfaces. Perhaps he didn't survive to build it!!!
Maybe with modern injector technology and the right alloy for the hot bit it could be made to work.
Mike Clark</HTML>
What a cunning plot - it triggered something in the back of my mind so I rooted through old copies of Light Steam Power to find in the September October 1969 issue a writeup of a boilerless steam engine.
In this machine water was fed through the side of an inverted cylinder into an annular groove around the piston to drop into a pool of molten lead(!) sitting in the cylinder head which was heated from below. A side port allowed the escape of exhaust steam unaflow fashion. The piston acted through a conrod to the crankshaft located on top of the cylinder.
This engine was proposed by R Seaton Taylor in 1911 and the 1969 article was a reprint of his ideas. Seaton Taylor was just putting up an idea and does not appear to have made it although he mentioned experimenting dropping water into molten lead and finding less spheroidal globules than on solid surfaces. Perhaps he didn't survive to build it!!!
Maybe with modern injector technology and the right alloy for the hot bit it could be made to work.
Mike Clark</HTML>
Re: Petitjean's Patentable Hot Head Engine
Posted by: tom ward (IP Logged)
Date: August 13, 2002 10:00AM
<HTML>A boilerless engine was patented in the UK sometime in the 40's. It involved a burner over each head with flue gases flowing around the cylinder. I'll look up the article and get back to you later.</HTML>
Re: Petitjean's Patentable Hot Head Engine
Posted by: William L. Petitjean, P.E. (IP Logged)
Date: August 14, 2002 04:02AM
<HTML>Drat! I should have known better to assume that I am so smart no one else has thought of a boilerless steam engine. Steam engines have been around too long and too many good minds have spent a lifetime thinking about them. There are almost no unturned stones.
The key to my hot head idea is controlling "cutoff" with a precise injector that puts just the right mass of water into the cylinder for each expansion stroke. This is exactly how the power is controlled with a diesel engine injector and they call this type of control ...... you guessed it ..... cutoff. If the water injector achieves accurate cutoff control then we have figured out how to control the power output of the engine.
If we allow the injector to have a long starting cutoff and track crank angles to see which piston should get the first squirt then we have a self starting engine with huge torques -- the result is no torque converter or transmission is required. We can use a standard differential gear ratio because the engine will turn fast enough (up to 1800 rpm) that we can easily achieve road speeds. This will help a relatively small displacement engine crank the car into motion.
The burners can be controlled by simple temperature sensors like thermistors that track head temperature. If we have enough thermal mass the temperatures will change slow enough that simple feedback loops will work nicely. This is a secondary control system that responds to changes in load managed by the primary cutoff control on the injector
The challenge is to provide a geometry and heat flow path that will cause the injected water to absorb the remaining sensible heat and all the latent heat of vaporization so all the injected liquid is flashed to steam during the power stroke. A diesel pushes a flame front. In the steam engine we must push an "evaporation front". All the people working on the Lamont boiler project are part way there with all their heat transfer work. The major difference is that the scale gets real small relatively speaking because we are talking about ounces of water versus gallons.
I am a piston engine guy. I have seen lots of rotary engines like turbines, etc. but I remain convinced the highest power outputs at reasonable speeds and the best efficiencies still will come from the trusty old slider crank engines that allow nice tuning of the volumetrics -- and with a rankine cycle it all about volumetrics.
Bill Petitjean</HTML>
The key to my hot head idea is controlling "cutoff" with a precise injector that puts just the right mass of water into the cylinder for each expansion stroke. This is exactly how the power is controlled with a diesel engine injector and they call this type of control ...... you guessed it ..... cutoff. If the water injector achieves accurate cutoff control then we have figured out how to control the power output of the engine.
If we allow the injector to have a long starting cutoff and track crank angles to see which piston should get the first squirt then we have a self starting engine with huge torques -- the result is no torque converter or transmission is required. We can use a standard differential gear ratio because the engine will turn fast enough (up to 1800 rpm) that we can easily achieve road speeds. This will help a relatively small displacement engine crank the car into motion.
The burners can be controlled by simple temperature sensors like thermistors that track head temperature. If we have enough thermal mass the temperatures will change slow enough that simple feedback loops will work nicely. This is a secondary control system that responds to changes in load managed by the primary cutoff control on the injector
The challenge is to provide a geometry and heat flow path that will cause the injected water to absorb the remaining sensible heat and all the latent heat of vaporization so all the injected liquid is flashed to steam during the power stroke. A diesel pushes a flame front. In the steam engine we must push an "evaporation front". All the people working on the Lamont boiler project are part way there with all their heat transfer work. The major difference is that the scale gets real small relatively speaking because we are talking about ounces of water versus gallons.
I am a piston engine guy. I have seen lots of rotary engines like turbines, etc. but I remain convinced the highest power outputs at reasonable speeds and the best efficiencies still will come from the trusty old slider crank engines that allow nice tuning of the volumetrics -- and with a rankine cycle it all about volumetrics.
Bill Petitjean</HTML>
Re: Petitjean's Patentable Hot Head Engine
Posted by: tom ward (IP Logged)
Date: August 14, 2002 10:06AM
<HTML>The key calculation to make is pounds per hour. 1800 rpm = 108,000 injections per hour. At one ounce per injection you will need 6.75 lbs/hr. At most this is about half a horsepower per stroke. Therefore you will need roughly 100 cylinders to get the power you are looking for. I suspect the patented engine failed to meet expectations.</HTML>
Re: Petitjean's Patentable Hot Head Engine
Posted by: George Nutz (IP Logged)
Date: August 14, 2002 10:46AM
<HTML>Bi,,
Welcome to John Woodson's marvelous forum!! It is an amazingly small world as the other day was talking to my old MIT friend, Hal Fuller---he has been in charge of the Skinner engine division for many years and still works there part time. It is a shame they are in Chapter 11 due to asbestoes lawsuits. If memory serves me correctly the wonderful Skinner unaflows used about 12-`14 #/HP-hr, by no means the ultimate in low steam rates but quite good for the moderate pressures and temperatures most ran on. Several modern engines have been as low as 7-10#/HP/hr.
I remember several "boilerless" engines of this type in the last 35 years of pursueing steam, think only small sized ones actually worked. The big problem to me is transfering enough heat in such a small heat transfer area. If we consider 20 horsepower requiring 150 pounds per hour(per cylinder) the amount of heat transfer required could be 180,000 to 200,000 BTU's per hour. It wold be great if feasible as the water injection would allow a controlled admission and very short cutoff as you stated. Think the magnitude of the heat transfer is the big bug-a-boo!!
Good luck, George</HTML>
Welcome to John Woodson's marvelous forum!! It is an amazingly small world as the other day was talking to my old MIT friend, Hal Fuller---he has been in charge of the Skinner engine division for many years and still works there part time. It is a shame they are in Chapter 11 due to asbestoes lawsuits. If memory serves me correctly the wonderful Skinner unaflows used about 12-`14 #/HP-hr, by no means the ultimate in low steam rates but quite good for the moderate pressures and temperatures most ran on. Several modern engines have been as low as 7-10#/HP/hr.
I remember several "boilerless" engines of this type in the last 35 years of pursueing steam, think only small sized ones actually worked. The big problem to me is transfering enough heat in such a small heat transfer area. If we consider 20 horsepower requiring 150 pounds per hour(per cylinder) the amount of heat transfer required could be 180,000 to 200,000 BTU's per hour. It wold be great if feasible as the water injection would allow a controlled admission and very short cutoff as you stated. Think the magnitude of the heat transfer is the big bug-a-boo!!
Good luck, George</HTML>
Re: Petitjean's Patentable Hot Head Engine
Posted by: William L. Petitjean, P.E. (IP Logged)
Date: August 14, 2002 01:02PM
<HTML>Thanks for the replies Tom and George. Tom, the key is indeed lbs per hour. However, horsepower is a function of MEP. Nonetheless, if you are going to wreck my engine I am glad we are doing it on the forum rather than back in the wood shed when the prototype won't work. I will go to work on my volumetrics and try to fashion up an accurate indicator card to see what kind of MEP we might expect using 300 psig, D&S inlet and about 29" vacuum. Might take a while, but I will post the results when I get there.
George, you have hit the nail on the head. This is the Sterling part of the engine and I think the latent heat issues are very serious at high speeds. So far my thinking revolves around the correct geometry and the best possible mechanical atomization of the water so we get lots of surface area and turbulence in the evaporation chamber. We can't have too big an evaporation chamber because with such low absolute pressures (if the weather is cool enough) we don't want much more than 3% excess clearance volume in the cylinder to maintain maximum volumetric efficiency.
I really love the old Skinner Unaflows and the Skinner Engineering Department was second to none. I talked with Hal Fuller a couple of months ago and it sounds like the old company is pretty well on the rocks.
My tenure there was a great adventure in industrial archeology and I learned my thermodynamics while reviewing old Herman Mueller's steam rate calculations. These are probably the most complete steam rate formulas around.
Bill Petitjean</HTML>
George, you have hit the nail on the head. This is the Sterling part of the engine and I think the latent heat issues are very serious at high speeds. So far my thinking revolves around the correct geometry and the best possible mechanical atomization of the water so we get lots of surface area and turbulence in the evaporation chamber. We can't have too big an evaporation chamber because with such low absolute pressures (if the weather is cool enough) we don't want much more than 3% excess clearance volume in the cylinder to maintain maximum volumetric efficiency.
I really love the old Skinner Unaflows and the Skinner Engineering Department was second to none. I talked with Hal Fuller a couple of months ago and it sounds like the old company is pretty well on the rocks.
My tenure there was a great adventure in industrial archeology and I learned my thermodynamics while reviewing old Herman Mueller's steam rate calculations. These are probably the most complete steam rate formulas around.
Bill Petitjean</HTML>
Re: Petitjean's Patentable Hot Head Engine
Posted by: Jim Crank (IP Logged)
Date: August 14, 2002 02:42PM
<HTML>William,
This is a very old idea going back to the start of the 20th century.
I have the two articles in Light Steam Power too, and one version had side port injection and one had a sort of injection pump with a nozzle.
The evaporator/boiler idea the guy proposed was two square plates welded together with a tiny distance between them. The injector nozzle was at the top of the "boiler" assembly on top of the head. No inlet valve.
I also tried to make one out of an little outboard engine I had laying around and a one cylinder Diesel injector pump.
It never would run.
Giving it some thought, the things I found wrong with it were these:
1) It would need a starter, and have to idle like a gas engine, it was not self starting like a real steam engine.
2) Calculations showed it was impossible to put in enough heat into the "boiler" to get any power in a large size. In fact, the heat input was so severe that one got film boiling and not nucleate, and with that the heat transfer into the water just went to blazes. Even with a welding torch on the plates, it would not run, only melted down eventually and the engine went into the dumpster!
Maybe as a model engine with no real power demand it would work; but for a powerful car engine, I don't think it has a chance.
Jim</HTML>
This is a very old idea going back to the start of the 20th century.
I have the two articles in Light Steam Power too, and one version had side port injection and one had a sort of injection pump with a nozzle.
The evaporator/boiler idea the guy proposed was two square plates welded together with a tiny distance between them. The injector nozzle was at the top of the "boiler" assembly on top of the head. No inlet valve.
I also tried to make one out of an little outboard engine I had laying around and a one cylinder Diesel injector pump.
It never would run.
Giving it some thought, the things I found wrong with it were these:
1) It would need a starter, and have to idle like a gas engine, it was not self starting like a real steam engine.
2) Calculations showed it was impossible to put in enough heat into the "boiler" to get any power in a large size. In fact, the heat input was so severe that one got film boiling and not nucleate, and with that the heat transfer into the water just went to blazes. Even with a welding torch on the plates, it would not run, only melted down eventually and the engine went into the dumpster!
Maybe as a model engine with no real power demand it would work; but for a powerful car engine, I don't think it has a chance.
Jim</HTML>
Re: Petitjean's Patentable Hot Head Engine
Posted by: tom ward (IP Logged)
Date: August 14, 2002 09:35PM
<HTML>Ignore my previous post. I grossly misplaced the decimal point. One ounce per stroke @ 1800 rpm could concievably yeild 500 HP if as the other post say you could tranfer heat through the head fast enough. Perhaps a cylinder made of pure titanium reinforced with nanotubes could be thin enough and strong enough at the 2000C temperature to do the job. Early in the 20th century experiments were made at injecting air, fuel, and water simultaneously into a gas turbine in a vain effort to improve efficiency. The high temps needed for good efficiency would melt those early turbine blades. If someone could make that work inside a cylinder they would create a new Nobel Prize category for engineering. Keep dreaming but also keep studying.</HTML>
Re: Petitjean's Patentable Hot Head Engine
Posted by: Howard Randall (IP Logged)
Date: August 15, 2002 01:23PM
<HTML>Bill, welcome to the site!
I read your post very early the next morning after you posted your message. I was immediately intrigued for I too had envisioned such an engine just days before your post. My epiphany was stimulated by an earlier string on this site that talked about burners and burner controls utilizing modern fuel injector technology. My thoughts were simply "why not move this up line to the cylinder(s)"?
I was very tempted to respond to your post that morning, but I did not want to sound like a "me too" guy, for certainly my epiphany was short lived. I have run Stanley Steamers for nearly 50 years and while thermodynamics was my best subject in school, my career took me in other directions. My now passing knowledge, however, soon led me to the critical issue of heat transfer rate as George has mentioned. I soon realized that I have forgotten most of what I would need to take the analysis any further and preferred to wait until those more knowledgeable piped up to better assess if this concept has more promise than, lets say, "anti-gravity".
Judging by the delay in responses, you have gotten the "knowledge" guys doing some heavy thinking. Judging by their responses, we ain't takin anti-gravity here but real engineering problems in search of real world solutions.
The more I read on this site, the more I am convinced that the answer to the modern steam power system will require more of this "out of box" thinking and finite element type analysis. I encourage you and others to continue to pursue this topic further.
Have they ever given the Nobel Prize to a chat room or forum? We could be the first!
Where do you live?</HTML>
I read your post very early the next morning after you posted your message. I was immediately intrigued for I too had envisioned such an engine just days before your post. My epiphany was stimulated by an earlier string on this site that talked about burners and burner controls utilizing modern fuel injector technology. My thoughts were simply "why not move this up line to the cylinder(s)"?
I was very tempted to respond to your post that morning, but I did not want to sound like a "me too" guy, for certainly my epiphany was short lived. I have run Stanley Steamers for nearly 50 years and while thermodynamics was my best subject in school, my career took me in other directions. My now passing knowledge, however, soon led me to the critical issue of heat transfer rate as George has mentioned. I soon realized that I have forgotten most of what I would need to take the analysis any further and preferred to wait until those more knowledgeable piped up to better assess if this concept has more promise than, lets say, "anti-gravity".
Judging by the delay in responses, you have gotten the "knowledge" guys doing some heavy thinking. Judging by their responses, we ain't takin anti-gravity here but real engineering problems in search of real world solutions.
The more I read on this site, the more I am convinced that the answer to the modern steam power system will require more of this "out of box" thinking and finite element type analysis. I encourage you and others to continue to pursue this topic further.
Have they ever given the Nobel Prize to a chat room or forum? We could be the first!
Where do you live?</HTML>
Re: Petitjean's Patentable Hot Head Engine
Posted by: Terry Williams (IP Logged)
Date: August 16, 2002 12:54PM
<HTML>We should get Bill Ryan in on this discussion. He has worked with a hot head engine in a go-cart and had it running. He said the best performance was when he had melted the copper fins off the head and had molten metal around the head. but he thought meybe some would be concerned about the safety of such machinery.</HTML>
Re: Petitjean's Patentable Hot Head Engine
Posted by: Terry Williams (IP Logged)
Date: August 20, 2002 11:26AM
Re: Petitjean's Patentable Hot Head Engine
Posted by: George Nutz (IP Logged)
Date: August 20, 2002 01:26PM
<HTML>Terry,
Thanks for the link---like many hobbyists who try something unique and have no funds to advance his project Considering the output of a 1000watt microwave at constant full power it would seem hard to vaporize instantaneously enough water to produce much real steam power per cylinder.
Using electricity to generate steam doesn't sound too efficient but in essence he has made a small non-fuel engine!! If it were not for the water used it would be a perpetual motion machine. Hard to see how the motor could develop more power to drive an alternator than the electricity produced to flash the water into steam, just a few mindless thoughts on it. An example would be if the magnetron were 100% efficient and its entire 1KW converted to steam generation(3412BTU/hr) than it might possible produce 3 pounds of steam per hour---this has to generate over 1KW to be self supporting=maybe 1.5 horsepower. Does anyone know of a steam engine that has a steam rate of 2#steam per horsepower hour??? If most of the exhausted heat could be recycled into the process it would seem still near impossible. BWDIK!!
George</HTML>
Thanks for the link---like many hobbyists who try something unique and have no funds to advance his project Considering the output of a 1000watt microwave at constant full power it would seem hard to vaporize instantaneously enough water to produce much real steam power per cylinder.
Using electricity to generate steam doesn't sound too efficient but in essence he has made a small non-fuel engine!! If it were not for the water used it would be a perpetual motion machine. Hard to see how the motor could develop more power to drive an alternator than the electricity produced to flash the water into steam, just a few mindless thoughts on it. An example would be if the magnetron were 100% efficient and its entire 1KW converted to steam generation(3412BTU/hr) than it might possible produce 3 pounds of steam per hour---this has to generate over 1KW to be self supporting=maybe 1.5 horsepower. Does anyone know of a steam engine that has a steam rate of 2#steam per horsepower hour??? If most of the exhausted heat could be recycled into the process it would seem still near impossible. BWDIK!!
George</HTML>
Re: Petitjean's Patentable Hot Head Engine
Posted by: Terry Williams (IP Logged)
Date: August 20, 2002 01:37PM
<HTML>I agree, George. In fact I think that if he could actually demonstrate step 7
"7. An easy way to measure net power output after you have the alternator on
line is to run a few 12 volt lights from the battery. You will see that the
battery stays charged even with the lights on and the motor keeps on going."
that he would be an instant billionaire.</HTML>
"7. An easy way to measure net power output after you have the alternator on
line is to run a few 12 volt lights from the battery. You will see that the
battery stays charged even with the lights on and the motor keeps on going."
that he would be an instant billionaire.</HTML>
Re: Petitjean's Patentable Hot Head Engine
Posted by: William L. Petitjean, P.E. (IP Logged)
Date: August 21, 2002 12:21PM
<HTML>Thanks for all the good comment. I promise to share my first billion with everyone on the forum. Of course, the heat transfer through the head seems to have been identified as a substantial problem. Therefore, do not spend your share just yet!
Concerning Mr. Crank's observations. The engine is a single acting engine producing power on each downward piston stroke. A three cylinder engine with 120 deg. cranks might be able to start itself, but a four cylinder engine with 90 deg. cranks would probably be better able to produce enough torque on one cylinder to get the thing going as a direct connected engine that does not have to idle. The key is to use modern solid state injector technology to actuate the water injection. This means the D.C. electrical system provides the power to inject the water, not some mechanical device driven from the engine. Furthermore, if you track the crank angles with an electronic timing device, the injectors will "fire" at the proper time whether the engine is moving or not. Another key is building the injectors so they can operate up to about 40% cutoff. This way when the engine is starting out at low rpm's the machine will develop very high torque when you most need it most to develop the required horsepower. Since the engine is turning slowly the heat transfer problems tend to go away because the is lot of time to transfer the heat.
Solid state injectors have revolutionized the diesel engine industry and this technology is transferrable to a hot head steam engine. One thing I have learned is that it is relatively easy and cheap to "build" functionality into a P.C. board then stamp them out at about $25 per pop, even in small quantities. Getting rid of a lot mechanical auxiliary garbage on a steam engine is an important avenue to cost savings, lower maintenance and improved reliability. Even the gas auto boys are contemplating solenoid actuated valves on their complex engines to eliminate mechanical systems and all the attendant problems that go with them.
Mr Crank's reference to film boiling versus nucleate boiling makes a very good point. Discussions I have had with others suggest one way to increase the heat transfer is to atomize the water into the range of water molecule sizes. One way to do this is to introduce the injected water mist into an ultrasonic generator. The medical people do this with "no heat" humidifiers and they have succeeded in producing "vapors" that are stable in the atomosphere without "condensation" that gets everything wet. My reasoning follows.
Maximum water surface area coupled with vigorous turbulence can transfer way more heat per unit of area than even the Lamont boiler idea. Furthermore, if we put most of the sensible heat into the water with an economiser that improves combustion chamber efficiency we begin to produce low quality steam in the evaporation chamber almost instantly. One problem with most small boilers is that they are water heater/evaporator combinations and this slows their response down dramatically. When I mention an evaporator chamber that is what I mean -- no sensible heat should be transferred in the hot head evaporator.
The replies to date about previous attempts at hot head engines are somewhat discouraging. However, Terry Williams' post about Bill Ryan's go cart gives me a little more bouyancy. My impression is that most attempts have not addressed the issues I am posting here. Nonetheless, the heat transfer problem remains the biggest hurdle in my mind as well as most others who post to this forum.
One curiosity I would like to point out. I am surprised that no one picked up on the use of the crankcase as the condenser and the elimination of all oil used for lubrication. This arrangement all by itself represents an enormous improvement over current practices with all types of engines and should be gigantic motivation to solve the heat transfer problems on the upper end.
First, all traditional steam engines suffer huge exhaust losses because of the small exhaust port areas. Add the piping to a remote condenser and you have indicator cards whose exhaust lines are significantly higher than the low absolute pressures developed in the condensers. In the stationary engine business recprocating steam engines are no match for turbines in condensing service because the turbine casings generally sit right on top of the condensers. So, the exhaust port sizes approximate the proportions of a garage door! In small, cramped automobile steam engines the exhaust loss is probably public enemy no. 1 when increased efficiencies are considered. Resolution of this problem with a single valve that controls admission and exhaust is impossible.
If the crankcase is turned into the condenser, the engine has a short stroke coupled with high rotative speeds (to obtain the required HP) and the exhaust ports from the cylinder into the crankcase are as big as possible (about as high as 10% or 15% of the stroke) we have gone a long way toward realizing something close to condenser pressure on the indicator card's exhaust line. Also, the lower the cylinder exhaust pressure the less excess clearance we need in a uniflow design. This means acceptable compression (in line with maximum efficiency) regardless of weather conditions (heat sink) and we can maintain good volumetric efficiency.
One result of improved exhaust efficiency is a corresponding reduction in water rate. This can only help the heat transfer bugaboo upstairs. My old Skinner notes show that a 30" stroke Skinner two valve unaflow will obtain a water rate of approximately 11.2 lbs per IHP hour with 300 psi saturated at the inlet and 26" vacuum on the exhaust. If the engine must put out 20 IHP in 4 cylinders this equals 249 lbs per hour. This equals 7,200 water injection "spurts" per hour at 1800 rpm, or 0.035 lbs per power stroke. This equals 0.96 cu. in. per injection. This is a substantial amount of water and confirms the heat transfer problems everyone is concerned about. However, the Skinner engine can only achieve this water rate at a cutoff substantially below 6% -- fairly impossible even with their very good dual cam valve gear. It also is using saturated steam -- very cool relative to the evaporator walls. This means the steam temperatures do not exceed 500 deg. F. Furthermore the Skinner is a traditional steam admission type of machine. It cannot turn very fast and it still wire draws considerably at short cutoffs. It also has the aforementioned exhaust loss. Even these big unaflows could not compete with G.E. reduction drive turbines in Great Lakes Shipping. Skinner attempted to rectify the exhaust losses with huge Wolf Steeple Compounds using 54" diameter LP pistons, but were not successful.
I am still convinced we can lower the water rate substantially by improving admission and exhaust efficiencies and thus start solving the heat transfer problem with much lower evaporation requirements. Any successful steam car must start with absolute minimun water rates or the rest of the car is a waste of money and time.
The lubrication of the simple hot head engine with water is not novel because we use composite bearings designed for this type of service all the time. Circulating water through the bearings will establish at least boundary lubrication and will carry away frictional heat. I think the elimination of oil in automobiles speaks for itself. If this became an apparent direction the lubrication industry would probably hunt me down and hang me by my toes.
Enough thoughts for now. I appreciate the forum and the ideas that come out of it.
Bill Petitjean</HTML>
Concerning Mr. Crank's observations. The engine is a single acting engine producing power on each downward piston stroke. A three cylinder engine with 120 deg. cranks might be able to start itself, but a four cylinder engine with 90 deg. cranks would probably be better able to produce enough torque on one cylinder to get the thing going as a direct connected engine that does not have to idle. The key is to use modern solid state injector technology to actuate the water injection. This means the D.C. electrical system provides the power to inject the water, not some mechanical device driven from the engine. Furthermore, if you track the crank angles with an electronic timing device, the injectors will "fire" at the proper time whether the engine is moving or not. Another key is building the injectors so they can operate up to about 40% cutoff. This way when the engine is starting out at low rpm's the machine will develop very high torque when you most need it most to develop the required horsepower. Since the engine is turning slowly the heat transfer problems tend to go away because the is lot of time to transfer the heat.
Solid state injectors have revolutionized the diesel engine industry and this technology is transferrable to a hot head steam engine. One thing I have learned is that it is relatively easy and cheap to "build" functionality into a P.C. board then stamp them out at about $25 per pop, even in small quantities. Getting rid of a lot mechanical auxiliary garbage on a steam engine is an important avenue to cost savings, lower maintenance and improved reliability. Even the gas auto boys are contemplating solenoid actuated valves on their complex engines to eliminate mechanical systems and all the attendant problems that go with them.
Mr Crank's reference to film boiling versus nucleate boiling makes a very good point. Discussions I have had with others suggest one way to increase the heat transfer is to atomize the water into the range of water molecule sizes. One way to do this is to introduce the injected water mist into an ultrasonic generator. The medical people do this with "no heat" humidifiers and they have succeeded in producing "vapors" that are stable in the atomosphere without "condensation" that gets everything wet. My reasoning follows.
Maximum water surface area coupled with vigorous turbulence can transfer way more heat per unit of area than even the Lamont boiler idea. Furthermore, if we put most of the sensible heat into the water with an economiser that improves combustion chamber efficiency we begin to produce low quality steam in the evaporation chamber almost instantly. One problem with most small boilers is that they are water heater/evaporator combinations and this slows their response down dramatically. When I mention an evaporator chamber that is what I mean -- no sensible heat should be transferred in the hot head evaporator.
The replies to date about previous attempts at hot head engines are somewhat discouraging. However, Terry Williams' post about Bill Ryan's go cart gives me a little more bouyancy. My impression is that most attempts have not addressed the issues I am posting here. Nonetheless, the heat transfer problem remains the biggest hurdle in my mind as well as most others who post to this forum.
One curiosity I would like to point out. I am surprised that no one picked up on the use of the crankcase as the condenser and the elimination of all oil used for lubrication. This arrangement all by itself represents an enormous improvement over current practices with all types of engines and should be gigantic motivation to solve the heat transfer problems on the upper end.
First, all traditional steam engines suffer huge exhaust losses because of the small exhaust port areas. Add the piping to a remote condenser and you have indicator cards whose exhaust lines are significantly higher than the low absolute pressures developed in the condensers. In the stationary engine business recprocating steam engines are no match for turbines in condensing service because the turbine casings generally sit right on top of the condensers. So, the exhaust port sizes approximate the proportions of a garage door! In small, cramped automobile steam engines the exhaust loss is probably public enemy no. 1 when increased efficiencies are considered. Resolution of this problem with a single valve that controls admission and exhaust is impossible.
If the crankcase is turned into the condenser, the engine has a short stroke coupled with high rotative speeds (to obtain the required HP) and the exhaust ports from the cylinder into the crankcase are as big as possible (about as high as 10% or 15% of the stroke) we have gone a long way toward realizing something close to condenser pressure on the indicator card's exhaust line. Also, the lower the cylinder exhaust pressure the less excess clearance we need in a uniflow design. This means acceptable compression (in line with maximum efficiency) regardless of weather conditions (heat sink) and we can maintain good volumetric efficiency.
One result of improved exhaust efficiency is a corresponding reduction in water rate. This can only help the heat transfer bugaboo upstairs. My old Skinner notes show that a 30" stroke Skinner two valve unaflow will obtain a water rate of approximately 11.2 lbs per IHP hour with 300 psi saturated at the inlet and 26" vacuum on the exhaust. If the engine must put out 20 IHP in 4 cylinders this equals 249 lbs per hour. This equals 7,200 water injection "spurts" per hour at 1800 rpm, or 0.035 lbs per power stroke. This equals 0.96 cu. in. per injection. This is a substantial amount of water and confirms the heat transfer problems everyone is concerned about. However, the Skinner engine can only achieve this water rate at a cutoff substantially below 6% -- fairly impossible even with their very good dual cam valve gear. It also is using saturated steam -- very cool relative to the evaporator walls. This means the steam temperatures do not exceed 500 deg. F. Furthermore the Skinner is a traditional steam admission type of machine. It cannot turn very fast and it still wire draws considerably at short cutoffs. It also has the aforementioned exhaust loss. Even these big unaflows could not compete with G.E. reduction drive turbines in Great Lakes Shipping. Skinner attempted to rectify the exhaust losses with huge Wolf Steeple Compounds using 54" diameter LP pistons, but were not successful.
I am still convinced we can lower the water rate substantially by improving admission and exhaust efficiencies and thus start solving the heat transfer problem with much lower evaporation requirements. Any successful steam car must start with absolute minimun water rates or the rest of the car is a waste of money and time.
The lubrication of the simple hot head engine with water is not novel because we use composite bearings designed for this type of service all the time. Circulating water through the bearings will establish at least boundary lubrication and will carry away frictional heat. I think the elimination of oil in automobiles speaks for itself. If this became an apparent direction the lubrication industry would probably hunt me down and hang me by my toes.
Enough thoughts for now. I appreciate the forum and the ideas that come out of it.
Bill Petitjean</HTML>
Re: Petitjean's Patentable Hot Head Engine
Posted by: Terry Williams (IP Logged)
Date: August 21, 2002 03:43PM
<HTML>Sounds like a natural for application of heat pipes to me.</HTML>
Re: Petitjean's Patentable Hot Head Engine
Posted by: George Nutz (IP Logged)
Date: August 22, 2002 08:41PM
<HTML>Bill,
Good luck and fortune with the project, this forum certainly allows a lot of free thought. Injecting .96 cubic inches per injection is a great deal in a few milliseconds, much more than fuel injectors may be capable of. I am glad you clarified the Skinner water rate in 11.2#/hr- IHP terms as my figures were for BHP actual output as they include friction, windage, heat losses and whatever pumps are driven at the time of the test. I think in that case the 14#BHP would be fairly accurate. In this kind of engine getting the least water/steam rate is paramount---I do wish you success and then we posters can share in your monetary success as well ;0) .
Best, George</HTML>
Good luck and fortune with the project, this forum certainly allows a lot of free thought. Injecting .96 cubic inches per injection is a great deal in a few milliseconds, much more than fuel injectors may be capable of. I am glad you clarified the Skinner water rate in 11.2#/hr- IHP terms as my figures were for BHP actual output as they include friction, windage, heat losses and whatever pumps are driven at the time of the test. I think in that case the 14#BHP would be fairly accurate. In this kind of engine getting the least water/steam rate is paramount---I do wish you success and then we posters can share in your monetary success as well ;0) .
Best, George</HTML>
Re: Petitjean's Patentable Hot Head Engine
Posted by: tom ward (IP Logged)
Date: August 22, 2002 10:49PM
<HTML>One way around the heat transfer barrier may be to use a very large bore and a very short stroke. A 14" bore would give a 1 sq. ft. head area. Tack weld hundreds of pins to the outer and inner sides of the head and the exchange area can be multiplied another 10-fold. I've seen this scheme on a stirling engine web site. This guy was trying to make a silent aircraft engine a few years ago.</HTML>
Re: Petitjean's Patentable Hot Head Engine
Posted by: Tim Senior (IP Logged)
Date: August 23, 2002 06:52AM
<HTML> I think I can see a problem with these hot head (ha ha) systems and that is the injector valves. For the system to work well the distance travelled by the stuff from the inlet injector through the hot head to the cylinder should be short so as to give as little dead space as possible. This means that the valves will have to be close to the heat and they will get very hot due to conduction.
Are materials available to produce a very fast operating valve which might be as hot as 1000 degrees (guess)?
I would also suggest that when the engine is idle the injector valve will get hot enough to boil the pressurised on the inlet side of the valve. What happens then?
Regards to all Tim Senior</HTML>
Are materials available to produce a very fast operating valve which might be as hot as 1000 degrees (guess)?
I would also suggest that when the engine is idle the injector valve will get hot enough to boil the pressurised on the inlet side of the valve. What happens then?
Regards to all Tim Senior</HTML>
Re: Petitjean's Patentable Hot Head Engine
Posted by: Mark Stacey (IP Logged)
Date: September 04, 2002 08:04PM
<HTML>The use of water as a crankcase lubricant is certainly an intreguing concept, but it does raise a questions of particular interest to one of my projects.
Will water have the same film strength as oil so will you need bigger bearing surfaces, a small addition of oil or is this just a matter of pumping the water at high enough pressure into the bearings?
I've seen on the net Bart Smaalders steam boat engine made from a converted air compressor that has a water filled sump with a just a splash of oil to stop rust. I'm assumming based on what I know of old compressors this is plain bearing crank. If this works for plain bearings then it will solve a major hassle with our steam buggy project. Any comments on the sort of oil that would work best with a water filled sump?
As far as using the sump as an exhaust duct perhaps a more flowing / streamlined layout would be sometning similar to the ports and ducting in the cutaway Junkers engine G B Gilbert provided (Personal thanks for the amazing links to engine pictures and diagrams) see
[www.oldengine.org]
Less windage and easier to make the exhaust duct?
Cheers
Mark Stacey</HTML>
Will water have the same film strength as oil so will you need bigger bearing surfaces, a small addition of oil or is this just a matter of pumping the water at high enough pressure into the bearings?
I've seen on the net Bart Smaalders steam boat engine made from a converted air compressor that has a water filled sump with a just a splash of oil to stop rust. I'm assumming based on what I know of old compressors this is plain bearing crank. If this works for plain bearings then it will solve a major hassle with our steam buggy project. Any comments on the sort of oil that would work best with a water filled sump?
As far as using the sump as an exhaust duct perhaps a more flowing / streamlined layout would be sometning similar to the ports and ducting in the cutaway Junkers engine G B Gilbert provided (Personal thanks for the amazing links to engine pictures and diagrams) see
[www.oldengine.org]
Less windage and easier to make the exhaust duct?
Cheers
Mark Stacey</HTML>
Re: Petitjean's Patentable Hot Head Engine
Posted by: William L. Petitjean, P.E. (IP Logged)
Date: September 07, 2002 03:23AM
<HTML>Hi Mark:
The key to water lubrication is the Orkot bearing material. It is impregnated with molydisulphide or graphite. Both work well in the presence of water. I don't think you can get a dynamic film that will separate the journal and bearing when using water - unless the pressure is very high. Therefore, you will get boundary lubrication. The primary purpose of the water stream is to carry heat away. Orkot has a relatively high coefficient of thermal expansion, so it cannot get very hot relative to the steel journal or it will take up all the clearance and burn up.
Our experience with Orkot on a locomotive running gear shows that it burnishes and polishes the journal when grease lubricated. Thus, its use in boundary water lubricated scenarios should be a good application. Also, it will completely destroy itself without wrecking the journal -- a very nice feature since Orkot bushings are relatively cheap and crankshafts are not.
The Orkot people are located in Eugene, Oregon at 503-688-5529. They are called Orkot Engineering Plastics, Inc. My old notes show Robert Houser as the engineer. They have been quite helpful with application tips in the past.
I am not a big fan of soluble oils or other oil additions to the crankcase because the condensate from the crank case should be returned to the boiler. When you have the engine apart just paint the crankcase with apexior paint and that will solve the rust problem.
Bill Petitjean</HTML>
The key to water lubrication is the Orkot bearing material. It is impregnated with molydisulphide or graphite. Both work well in the presence of water. I don't think you can get a dynamic film that will separate the journal and bearing when using water - unless the pressure is very high. Therefore, you will get boundary lubrication. The primary purpose of the water stream is to carry heat away. Orkot has a relatively high coefficient of thermal expansion, so it cannot get very hot relative to the steel journal or it will take up all the clearance and burn up.
Our experience with Orkot on a locomotive running gear shows that it burnishes and polishes the journal when grease lubricated. Thus, its use in boundary water lubricated scenarios should be a good application. Also, it will completely destroy itself without wrecking the journal -- a very nice feature since Orkot bushings are relatively cheap and crankshafts are not.
The Orkot people are located in Eugene, Oregon at 503-688-5529. They are called Orkot Engineering Plastics, Inc. My old notes show Robert Houser as the engineer. They have been quite helpful with application tips in the past.
I am not a big fan of soluble oils or other oil additions to the crankcase because the condensate from the crank case should be returned to the boiler. When you have the engine apart just paint the crankcase with apexior paint and that will solve the rust problem.
Bill Petitjean</HTML>
Re: Petitjean's Patentable Hot Head Engine
Posted by: Andy Patterson (IP Logged)
Date: March 16, 2004 07:29PM
<HTML>Hi Bill
Bill Ryan has a running hot head goKart. It has been entered in every DanVille race so far. At always works great except at the race. Harry Schoell is working on a very high tech hot head design. He is planning on using supper crittical pressures. There is one possable problem with vaporizing water in the engine. Vaporization does take a finite amount of time. I have been trying to get more information of vaporization and condensation time calculations. The new IAPWS steam property formulation I have opened my eyes to this. The work for supperheated liquids and subcooled vapors. The IAPWS papers do not have much info other than stating thay the formula yealds correct results. A supperheated liquid is one containing the enthalpy that it should be vapor but has not changed state yet. The subcooled vapor is the same in reverse. It is a vapor not having the enthalpy to be a vapor. The change of phase takes a finite amount of time. The basic differance between the supper heated liquid and vapor is it's specific volume. At any rate the change of phase time could limit RPM.
Andy</HTML>
Bill Ryan has a running hot head goKart. It has been entered in every DanVille race so far. At always works great except at the race. Harry Schoell is working on a very high tech hot head design. He is planning on using supper crittical pressures. There is one possable problem with vaporizing water in the engine. Vaporization does take a finite amount of time. I have been trying to get more information of vaporization and condensation time calculations. The new IAPWS steam property formulation I have opened my eyes to this. The work for supperheated liquids and subcooled vapors. The IAPWS papers do not have much info other than stating thay the formula yealds correct results. A supperheated liquid is one containing the enthalpy that it should be vapor but has not changed state yet. The subcooled vapor is the same in reverse. It is a vapor not having the enthalpy to be a vapor. The change of phase takes a finite amount of time. The basic differance between the supper heated liquid and vapor is it's specific volume. At any rate the change of phase time could limit RPM.
Andy</HTML>
Re: Petitjean's Patentable Hot Head Engine
Posted by: Andrew Lose (IP Logged)
Date: June 27, 2004 09:45PM
<HTML>I know Propane or Natural Gas or something always availible and portable is ruling this discusion as that seems to be the mindset for use. I have been toying with another. Basicaly it is for the offgrid powerplants. It would incoperate the sun combined with a steam engine. My question are: how hot would the head need to be?
How efficent is the engine?
My initial small prototype set a beam that burned through a phonebook in a little over 10 min. It could be directed to a specific point then distributed via heat pipes to heat the head.
Also as water condences in the crankcase I would put a thermoelectric compound to gain power to run the controls.</HTML>
How efficent is the engine?
My initial small prototype set a beam that burned through a phonebook in a little over 10 min. It could be directed to a specific point then distributed via heat pipes to heat the head.
Also as water condences in the crankcase I would put a thermoelectric compound to gain power to run the controls.</HTML>
Re: Petitjean's Patentable Hot Head Engine
Posted by: Damijan Ruzic (IP Logged)
Date: August 11, 2004 03:46PM
<HTML>Well, well and well again, you are in the right way.
I just wish to mention that your idea is a real time worthy. I am working on some similar design with many paralells, but I prefere rotary engine with foldyble fins becouse I can use out all expansion available with any steam available, simply becouse it have adjustable expansion chamber.
In many aspects you are absolutely right and we should finaly make steam engines finaly boiler free, flash steem injection is a modern way for doing it.
I would realy like to work with you one day,
Best regards,
Damijan</HTML>
I just wish to mention that your idea is a real time worthy. I am working on some similar design with many paralells, but I prefere rotary engine with foldyble fins becouse I can use out all expansion available with any steam available, simply becouse it have adjustable expansion chamber.
In many aspects you are absolutely right and we should finaly make steam engines finaly boiler free, flash steem injection is a modern way for doing it.
I would realy like to work with you one day,
Best regards,
Damijan</HTML>
Re: Petitjean's Patentable Hot Head Engine
Posted by: Damijan Ruzic (IP Logged)
Date: August 12, 2004 04:52AM
<HTML>Dear TIM,
Do you realy think that watter, air and fuel can not work together in ony cycle. Of course this system can work, the only qvaetion is - how? In piston engine it could bring efficiency to approx. 80% level if aplied properly, but here we can face serious polution and oxidation problems, we have to find proper way of injecting nad we, might be ,need some purification system... a lot of work to do and a lot of money to spent.
Presuming you have reasonable resources it could be done.
Regards,
Damijan</HTML>
Do you realy think that watter, air and fuel can not work together in ony cycle. Of course this system can work, the only qvaetion is - how? In piston engine it could bring efficiency to approx. 80% level if aplied properly, but here we can face serious polution and oxidation problems, we have to find proper way of injecting nad we, might be ,need some purification system... a lot of work to do and a lot of money to spent.
Presuming you have reasonable resources it could be done.
Regards,
Damijan</HTML>
Re: Petitjean's Patentable Hot Head Engine
Posted by: GregCleland (IP Logged)
Date: May 17, 2005 10:27PM
<HTML>Hello, and although I may seem relatively uninformed, I also concentrated a great deal of meaningless thought on the issue of utilizing microwave technology relative to steam production. However, I do not agree that water can be directly affected for the greatest efficiency. A medium of some sort, functioning as a polar opposite to that of the microwave would yield the greatest amount of heat energy. Who knows? e-mail me sometime.</HTML>
Re: Petitjean's Patentable Hot Head Engine
Posted by: Dean Lehrke (IP Logged)
Date: August 11, 2005 10:58PM
<HTML>The first person to power a steam car with a hot head steam engine was Dr. Joseph Buchanan of Lexington KY. in 1824. His engine used an iron retort head that was heated by a small furnace and a pump squirted water through this hot mass of iron to flash into steam in the cylinder. His engine was mounted in a converted hack or cab. In Louisville he ran it 4 miles during a run in 1825. The name normally given to these engines by steam engineers of that era was a "volcanic" steam engine. Oliver Evans built a volcanic steam engine about 1813.</HTML>
Re: Petitjean's Patentable Hot Head Engine
Posted by: Ronald L Light (IP Logged)
Date: August 17, 2005 04:05PM
<HTML>Bill
It sounds like we are both of the age that our thinking about projects involves how much time we have left if we stay healthy, that being said ,I found your post about a hot head engine much in line with some thoughts of my own.
As a child i used to play with a button which had a loop of string held on a finger of each hand, when rotational speed was reached the string became quite stiff with tension, a little force of each arm would cause the button flywheel to spin back and forth at a fast speed.
Now to scale this idea up to a usable size, the button becomes a flywheel of much more potential energy by using steel,or some other engineered weight. The flywheel would have a cylinder in the center with two opposed pistons that would be pushed in by the winding of our tension device, while compression of air would generate heat in the center of the cylinder and push the pistons out. (now for more details)
There would be a base with an upright arm at each end, a center support to hold the flywheel ( or rotating assembly ). Inside and at the center of the cylinder there would be a massive section of steel with electrical heating elements embedded to hold additional heat energy, then one or more injectors to inject the proper amount of water or refigerent. Then there would have to be valving and a containment system to complete the cycle.
I'm not sure if my space is limited for writing but if it is i'll make another post.
The rotating group would also involve an electrical generating device of some proven design. I have left out a lot of important info and detail, but if you would like more please send me an e-mail.
Thanks
Ron Light</HTML>
It sounds like we are both of the age that our thinking about projects involves how much time we have left if we stay healthy, that being said ,I found your post about a hot head engine much in line with some thoughts of my own.
As a child i used to play with a button which had a loop of string held on a finger of each hand, when rotational speed was reached the string became quite stiff with tension, a little force of each arm would cause the button flywheel to spin back and forth at a fast speed.
Now to scale this idea up to a usable size, the button becomes a flywheel of much more potential energy by using steel,or some other engineered weight. The flywheel would have a cylinder in the center with two opposed pistons that would be pushed in by the winding of our tension device, while compression of air would generate heat in the center of the cylinder and push the pistons out. (now for more details)
There would be a base with an upright arm at each end, a center support to hold the flywheel ( or rotating assembly ). Inside and at the center of the cylinder there would be a massive section of steel with electrical heating elements embedded to hold additional heat energy, then one or more injectors to inject the proper amount of water or refigerent. Then there would have to be valving and a containment system to complete the cycle.
I'm not sure if my space is limited for writing but if it is i'll make another post.
The rotating group would also involve an electrical generating device of some proven design. I have left out a lot of important info and detail, but if you would like more please send me an e-mail.
Thanks
Ron Light</HTML>
Re: Petitjean's Patentable Hot Head Engine
Posted by: Ronald L Light (IP Logged)
Date: August 18, 2005 07:18PM
<HTML>Next day revision
I went back and looked at my drawing because it occured to me that i had stated the cylinder was at the center of the flywheel which is not right, it is below or above, designer's choice.
Trying to describe things that are in the mind in a way that others can visualize and see a picture is really hard for me, so i'll try and state the object of this idea as best i can.
the first statement is a closed loop system based on heat pump technology
Second is injection of an expansion medium ( my thought, water to steam )
Third a form of thermal storage
Forth a method of kenetic energy into electrical energy
Fifth a method to contain heat and high pressure in one part of the system while encourageing heat absorption in the low pressure area.
Now for the description of each section.
The base would be a rectangle with a center support for the flywheel and compression section, at each end is a pivot point for the controll arms to be attached.
The control arms will pin to the base, and have a point of attachment for the piston rod, and the cables for tensioning the flywheel, it should have a spring or torsion resistance allowing it to move plus and minus from netural.
The compression section is a cylinder to recieve the pistons, and a center section that on the inside has a large mass of cast iron or steel for storing heat, and electrical heating elements to aid in the controling of thermal value, this area would also need intake and exaust valves, or possibly an expander turbine, and injectors for injecting water or refigerant.
The flywheel or rotating group could be designed in a number of ways.
I envision a system that starts with the axle of the rotating group having a flange attached at each end which would connect to a multiple of steel cables which make the connection to the control arm, as the flywheel rotates in one direction these cables twist in a spiral untill the control arms are pulled inward and move the pistons toward compression, at the point of max twist and pressure the flywheel comes to a stop, at this moment all the energy of the system is in a state of potential energy and will cause the flywheel to spin in the opposite direction upon release. Also at this point or just before, an injection of water in the proper amount will flash to steam and build to some pressure in addition to the pressure of compression, all this energy will be transfered to the flywheel untill it reaches the middle of the cycle, at which point it then begains to put it's energy back into twist and compression untill max twist and compression is reached, this quantity of energy is greater because of the added steam pressure. This cycle would continue untill the energy level became so great that all or part of the system would break.
Now for a method to add and remove this extra heat energy.
As anyone knows that has played with the string and button, as the tension builds the speed of rotation can become extremly fast, the feel is simular to a strong rubber band being streched and released.
Now on with the rotating group.
Those experienced in electromachanics might see this in a better focus, and my lack of expertise in this area might show.
On the axel shaft would be two counter rotating steel wheels the bearings would be clutch bearings that locked one way and allowed rotation the other. Each flywheel would take on energy on one side while freewheeling on the other. Using the technology of alternators, there would be a stator attached to each flywheel and a rotor attached to the axel on each side to correspond to the stators.
Using the known facts of EMF and CEMF a draw of the right amount of electrical energy at the correct time would keep the flywheels from over speeding, yet not retard them too much. This energy would be applied to the heating elements inside the compression chamber, (and possibly some extra to send to a battery or outside use.)
Now for the rest .
We have steam that needs to be expanded by applying to a turbine or the flywheels in some manner.
I have a keen interest in the Tesla Turbine so tend to see this type unit in play.
Also a Homopolar generator could deliver some benefits.
To sum this up, this design hopefully would produce energy in the amount equal to the BTU value absorbed in the low pressure side of the system.
Hope this makes more logic than my first post. Thanks
Ron Light</HTML>
I went back and looked at my drawing because it occured to me that i had stated the cylinder was at the center of the flywheel which is not right, it is below or above, designer's choice.
Trying to describe things that are in the mind in a way that others can visualize and see a picture is really hard for me, so i'll try and state the object of this idea as best i can.
the first statement is a closed loop system based on heat pump technology
Second is injection of an expansion medium ( my thought, water to steam )
Third a form of thermal storage
Forth a method of kenetic energy into electrical energy
Fifth a method to contain heat and high pressure in one part of the system while encourageing heat absorption in the low pressure area.
Now for the description of each section.
The base would be a rectangle with a center support for the flywheel and compression section, at each end is a pivot point for the controll arms to be attached.
The control arms will pin to the base, and have a point of attachment for the piston rod, and the cables for tensioning the flywheel, it should have a spring or torsion resistance allowing it to move plus and minus from netural.
The compression section is a cylinder to recieve the pistons, and a center section that on the inside has a large mass of cast iron or steel for storing heat, and electrical heating elements to aid in the controling of thermal value, this area would also need intake and exaust valves, or possibly an expander turbine, and injectors for injecting water or refigerant.
The flywheel or rotating group could be designed in a number of ways.
I envision a system that starts with the axle of the rotating group having a flange attached at each end which would connect to a multiple of steel cables which make the connection to the control arm, as the flywheel rotates in one direction these cables twist in a spiral untill the control arms are pulled inward and move the pistons toward compression, at the point of max twist and pressure the flywheel comes to a stop, at this moment all the energy of the system is in a state of potential energy and will cause the flywheel to spin in the opposite direction upon release. Also at this point or just before, an injection of water in the proper amount will flash to steam and build to some pressure in addition to the pressure of compression, all this energy will be transfered to the flywheel untill it reaches the middle of the cycle, at which point it then begains to put it's energy back into twist and compression untill max twist and compression is reached, this quantity of energy is greater because of the added steam pressure. This cycle would continue untill the energy level became so great that all or part of the system would break.
Now for a method to add and remove this extra heat energy.
As anyone knows that has played with the string and button, as the tension builds the speed of rotation can become extremly fast, the feel is simular to a strong rubber band being streched and released.
Now on with the rotating group.
Those experienced in electromachanics might see this in a better focus, and my lack of expertise in this area might show.
On the axel shaft would be two counter rotating steel wheels the bearings would be clutch bearings that locked one way and allowed rotation the other. Each flywheel would take on energy on one side while freewheeling on the other. Using the technology of alternators, there would be a stator attached to each flywheel and a rotor attached to the axel on each side to correspond to the stators.
Using the known facts of EMF and CEMF a draw of the right amount of electrical energy at the correct time would keep the flywheels from over speeding, yet not retard them too much. This energy would be applied to the heating elements inside the compression chamber, (and possibly some extra to send to a battery or outside use.)
Now for the rest .
We have steam that needs to be expanded by applying to a turbine or the flywheels in some manner.
I have a keen interest in the Tesla Turbine so tend to see this type unit in play.
Also a Homopolar generator could deliver some benefits.
To sum this up, this design hopefully would produce energy in the amount equal to the BTU value absorbed in the low pressure side of the system.
Hope this makes more logic than my first post. Thanks
Ron Light</HTML>
Re: Petitjean's Patentable Hot Head Engine
Posted by: Ron Light (IP Logged)
Date: September 22, 2005 06:36PM
Re: Petitjean's Patentable Hot Head Engine
Posted by: Thomas A. Graves (IP Logged)
Date: November 24, 2005 12:57AM
<HTML>Mr. petitjeans please contact me at "magnadyne7@yahoo.com" in regards to your steam engine.
regards,
TAG</HTML>
regards,
TAG</HTML>
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.