A Revolutionary Engine Design: 4VU.NET

[Nathan322]

http://www.quasiturbine.com/
http://www.sterlingsolar.com/engines.htm
http://www.aircaraccess.com/nealtank.htm
http://www.stirlingengine.com/


my design which i conceived before i found theses other web sites is below

http://www.4vu.net/view/personal-573f74a946.jpg

its a modification of a steam engine ( http://www.unb.ca/web/transpo/mynet/steameng.gif ) using high pressures to boil liquid or gases at room temp, then close the system and direct it one direction with one-way valves. it amazing it simulates the Earth weather system.

 

[Danger]

Hi, Nathan;
I see that this thread has been around for a while, and has been moved, and has still not been responded to. While I'm somewhat familiar with Sterling engines, the rest of this is a bit out of my league. Your illustration was pretty hard to follow until I checked out the link for the solar car, and then it just became harder because I couldn't follow it either. You're not in one of the areas that I'm qualified to help with, but anyone who is trying to design something efficient is worthy of notice. I'm pretty much just posting this to make sure that you don't lose confidence in what you're trying to do (because it's very worthwhile), and also to bring your thread back up to the top so it doesn't get buried.

 

[brewnog]

Sorry Danger, I was going to reply to this yesterday, but started getting a bit angry so decided I'd leave it well alone!

It pisses me off when people post links with gems such as:

Engineers can do their jobs (which is to design air motors for portability and convenience, not for efficiency) without knowing that all compressor work is lost as dissipated heat, so this vital information has been left out of textbooks for many decades to keep people from asking questions.

and also tries to make out that heat pumps are something new.

Perhaps the OP would like to explain himself how his design works, and why those links aren't just misrepresentation of existing and well understood science.

 

[FredGarvin]

Brews...where was that quote made? I got to the game a bit late.

 

[Danger]

Fred, that's in the description under the diagram in the 'aircaraccess' link. I never got that far the first time I looked at it because I couldn't follow what the guy was saying. I was blaming it on myself for not knowing enough about the subject, but maybe the site is just a crackpot thing. I still can't figure out how you're supposed to be able to inject low-pressure air into a high-pressure environment.

 

[russ_watters]

I missed that little gem too (not that I looked very hard...) - what does he think the point of being an engineer is?

I looked at the photo in the OP and it is very unclear as to what the heat source/sinks are.

Looking at the other links, the first looks a lot like Wankel rotary engine. Very similar in principle, and a sound one from an engineering standpoint. if it works well, great - sell it to car companies.

The second (and fourth) link is Sterling cycle engines. Ok...so what's new or interesting there? They are good for some applications, not so good for others. The biggest problem is low output.

The third link is a pneumatic car. Technically, it'll work, but practically...try driving it more than 10 miles on a tank of air. Even without seeing the words "Free Energy" in the title page, it's pretty obvious crackpottery (If you're going to use the term "free energy", why not just title the page, "I'm a fruitcake, don't listen to me"?).

edit: A closer look at the pneumatic car (I didn't get past the words "free energy" the first time): this isn't a typical pneumatic car - at least, the design isn't supposed to be. Trouble is, the extra stuff they have hooked up to it won't do much of anything. It certainly won't do what they are saying it'll do. So in the end, it'll work just like an ordinary pneumatic car...ie, not well.

 

[Danger]

In fairness to the guy who wrote that thing, Russ, it appears that he's referring to 'free' in the financial aspect of not having to pay for fuel. It does specifically say that it's powered by heat from the sun, and so isn't a closed system. I still can't figure out how it's supposed to work, though.

 

[russ_watters]

Yeah, I've got a hair trigger for crackpots. Check my edit, though, for more on the air-car...

 

[Nathan322]

thanks for the constructive criticism

Thanks for not trashing this post and trying to answer my question on the other. Ill try to answer any questions you may have. But bare in mind i am very much a armature when it comes to the academic side of science. I will link you to a forum were i posted more info. Please keep in mind i may be scientifically incorrect the way i word things sometimes and would appreciate the correction to improve my over all hypothesis, which at this point is kind of vague and crack potty(ewe).
Anyway here it is please scan through it
http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=16906"
P.S. I know zero point energy is a incorrect term, how ever there's is still valuable theories behind it

 

[casualobserver]

Would this be considered a perpetual motion device, since it would run without gasoline?

sorry if that's a stupid question, that's just what it looks like to me.


-yours truly ...casualobserver

 

[Q_Goest]

http://www.4vu.net/view/personal-573f74a946.jpg" is insufficient to make any determination, it is non-sense.

http://www.quasiturbine.com/" regards a type of internal combustion engine.

The reference to the sterling engine regards a type of system which takes heat from a high temperature source, uses part of that energy to create mechanical energy, and rejects energy to a low temperature source.

http://www.aircaraccess.com/nealtank.htm" regards a con which is posted on the internet. That website is trying to rip people off. Nathan insinuated he was the owner of this website by claiming he was the inventor of the cycle shown. Nathan's other post was subsequently deleted.

Which web page are you referring to?

 

[russ_watters]

A sterling engine is not a perpetual motion machine. A typical air powered engine (not fundamentally different from an air-powered machine-tool) is not a perpetual motion machine. An engine that utilizes solar power would not be a perpetual motion machine. An engine that purports to suck heat from the atmosphere, but doesn't have a heat sink or one that purports to use compressed air to make more compressed air would be a perpetual motion machine.

 

[Cliff_J]

On the air car topic, a company in France (I believe) had their car featured on one of those Discovery shows, and it had something like a range of 40 miles at 40 miles an hour. It used 2 sequential cylinders for high/low pressures (why not go 3 or 4 like really old the steam ships right away) and was basically a fiberglass go-kart with decent cargo capacity (for a tiny car designed for tiny european streets). It also had 4 large carbon fiber compressed air tanks in its frame rails storing air at something like 5000 psi. Its in effect an electric car with lightweight on-board energy storage, and the inventor kept it in that vein with the added bonus that the engine can also run on petro when the compressed air reserves are low.

I don't think I'd want to see crash tests though, imaging the cracking/crunching fiberglass shell followed by 5000 psi tanks exploding and I just can't see that being good. And the numbers could be off, maybe its just 40km at 40kmh and it seemed too optimistic on how little electricity it would take to make that amount of compressed air at that psi.

Regardless, it still has no bearing on the air car crackpottery referenced earlier of low/high pressure 'injection' or whatever other poor rationale is used. I'd hope bad science remains out of textbooks and only to the delusioned.

 

[Q_Goest]

One can take any device such as a reciprocating piston, and utilize it in a variety of different ways to do different things. You can make it into an internal combustion engine, you can use a reciprocating piston as an air compressor, an air motor, a steam driven motor, etc… What all these have in common is a reciprocating piston, valves, crankshaft, and other parts. The crankshaft goes around and the piston goes up and down, and when the valves open at specific intervals, you might have an internal combustion engine, or you might have an air driven motor (also known as an expander in refrigeration).

The quasi turbine is the same way, it has a 'piston' of sorts that goes around in a circular motion, hence the term "turbine". But it's not a real turbine, hence "quasi". A quasiturbine can also be made into an internal combustion engine, a compressor, an air motor, etc… Sorry if I was a bit brief in my earlier response.


***

http://www.ifccfbi.gov/index.asp"