Searching \ for '[TECH] Cyclone Engine' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=cyclone+engine
Search entire site for: 'Cyclone Engine'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[TECH] Cyclone Engine'
2011\02\03@132631 by James Newton

face picon face
I keep hearing about cold fusion, sterling engines, fuel cells, air cars,
bio fuel... Every one of those has /fatal/ flaws.
THIS Cyclone Engine is what we should be getting excited about. Efficiency
between gas and diesel, burns ANYTHING cleanly and completely. No NOx. No
oil, no transmission, low maintenance.
Most of all: It's REAL!


http://www.cyclonepower.com

I'd be very curious to hear if any of you have looked into it, or have any
thoughts /after/ you actually look through the site.

P.S. they are the power plant in the upcoming US attempt to beat the land
speed record for a steam powered car...


--
James Newton
1-970-462-7764

2011\02\03@134101 by jim

flavicon
face

All,

I looked the site over a bit and looked at the theory of operation, and
it seems viable to me.
It also looks promising.  It seems to have only pros and no cons.  Or
at least none that I can see.
Except for the fact that they are still in development, and not quite
ready for prime time.
But, given that, they look very good indeed.

I have an application in mind right now that would be a good fit for
one of  these.  Or at least,  I think so anyway.  We'll see if my application can come to fruition.

 Regards,

Jim



> ---{Original Message removed}

2011\02\03@151047 by Denny Esterline

picon face
> P.S. they are the power plant in the upcoming US attempt to beat the land
> speed record for a steam powered car...
>

Actually, the most amazing thing I see on the site is that the
steam-powered land speed record only stands at 148 mph.

I thought Stanley's were doing nearly that in 1906.

-Denn

2011\02\03@153315 by Michael Watterson

face picon face
On 03/02/2011 20:10, Denny Esterline wrote:
> Actually, the most amazing thing I see on the site is that the
> steam-powered land speed record only stands at 148 mph.
>
> I thought Stanley's were doing nearly that in 1906.
>
A Stanley Steamer set the world record for the fastest mile in an automobile (28.2 seconds) in 1906. This record was not broken by any automobile until 1911, although Glen Curtiss <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glen_Curtiss> beat the record in 1907 with a V-8 powered motorcycle at 136 mph (219 km/h). The record for steam-powered automobiles was not broken until 2009.^[3] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Motor_Carriage_Company#cite_note-2

2011\02\03@153422 by Bob Blick

face
flavicon
face


On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 10:26 -0800, "James Newton" wrote:

> I'd be very curious to hear if any of you have looked into it, or have
> any
> thoughts /after/ you actually look through the site.

I have always liked the idea of external combustion engines.

The only thing that sets off alarm bells for me is they are located in
Pompano Beach, Florida. Not a place I'd think to locate for that kind of
development.

Best regards, Bob

-- http://www.fastmail.fm - Same, same, but different...

2011\02\03@155808 by RussellMc

face picon face
James will be expecting this ... :-)

> I keep hearing about cold fusion, sterling engines, fuel cells, air cars,
> bio fuel... Every one of those has /fatal/ flaws.

That's a strange mix.

Cold fusion: As yet unknown technology that is hoped to be available
and viable. A core of serious competent methodical researchers with as
yet unproven results after decades surrounded by  cloud of unknown
magnitude of con men, sincere free-energy people with no grasp of
physics and various camp followers

> sterling engines

Things that run on silver? OR a proprietary cycle engine that uses
expansion of metal rods (really)

>> Stirling engines

No fatal flaws.
Various engineering challenges.

If you want a very good summary of Stirling engine development from
about 1850 on an an utterly superb overview of what's involved in
developing and refining small (100W range) Stirling engines with
*demonstrated* lifetimes of over 50,000 hours (8+ years) continuous
operation by 1999, and probability of survival figures of 13.2 years
at 99.99% and 21.5 years at 99.9% by 2006, see

*** SUPERB *** ===>
http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2007/TM-2007-214804.pdf

These are niche no holds barred, almost cost counted designs with no
contacting surfaces  and heater head creep being the dominant failure
consideration. They will not power your laptop any time soon (unless
you are on the first Saturn flyby manned mission) BUT with results
like this, trickle down and "look over the shoulder" copying will lead
to stunning open market products. (Just reading this paper tells you,
amongst many other things, what flexure material works best, and why,
what challenges you face in heater head design, how hot the big-boys
run and for how long and what happens, and what to use to glue your
magnets to the linear alternator and that you can make it work 40%
better than the manufacturer claims.)

External combustion (like Cyclone engine), runs on most
thermodynamically efficient cycle possible (unlike Cyclone),
Large number in operation in many applications.
Main issues are achieving good power densities at acceptable cost. So
far viable mainly where either superior efficiency and performance are
more important than cost or where other special attributes make them
attractive. eg external combustion, no combustion (molten salt etc),
high efficiency, silent operation etc.

- Used by NASA for decades for deep space applications where the
alternatives are inferior. Has demonstrated
- 25 kW grid power delivered dish Stirling engines, the world's most
efficient sun to grid efficiencies yet seen, proven in field trials
over several decades at Sandia labs, small scale (around 100 units x
25 kW) demonstrations now running with funding being sought for
square-mile scale installations in California and elsewhere.
- Thousands of Whispergen cogen units (tens of thousands?) in long
term field use in domestic marine applications and ongoing "advanced
field trial" advice re $300M European CHP contract.   (stay tuned).
- Used in a small number of submarines for super silent "Air
independent propulsion". eg Swedish Kockums.
http://www.sesusa.org/submarine.pdf    75 kW, 14 days at 5 knots.

NASA are due to trial a 40 KW fission (James HAS to love it) to
Stirling Moon / Mars power source in 21012..
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/news/news/releases/2009/09-069.html

More ...

> fuel cells

Extremely good now.
Getting better by the year.
Too expensive at present for mainstream use.
Used by NASA as main Shuttle electrical power source since inception.
Direct Methanol + air cells available now - priced well enough to be
viable for niche portable applications.
Current requisite fuel purity an issue under very active investigation.
Ongoing substantial improvements in PEM membranes continues to improve
many versions.
Will be a very practical product in many applications in the 0 - 10 year range.

> air cars,

Say what?
No doubt thrown in there for fun or to confuse.
I'd swap my mouldering MR2 Supercharger for a Cyclone powered air car
if I could find one.
(Finding the MR2 is easy).

> bio fuel

This from a green tinged one ? :-).
[[I'm also "green tinged" but it's not always apparent when pragmatics
are being considered.]].
Also essentially orthogonal to the Cyclone. The Cyclone would run on biofuel.
Biofuel has its place and is fully viable as an energy source BUT if
it is to be considered competitively it needs to be compared on a
fully costed unsubsidised basis. Usually costings are so biased by
political considerations as to be unable to be easily compared*, but
its clear that biofuel is not a major contender as a petrochemical
replacement and faces more than stiff competition from other
alternative sources. major issues are available land resources,
costing of alternative uses,efficiency of conversion and energy inputs
required.
* As is the case for 'certain other" "less green" proposed energy sources.

> THIS Cyclone Engine is what we should be getting excited about. Efficiency
> between gas and diesel, burns ANYTHING cleanly and completely. No NOx. No
> oil, no transmission, low maintenance.

>From their site:
It's a steam engine.
It has valves.
It doesn't need lubricant because it uses water as its lubricant.
It can run from waste heat sources down to 500F (many would love waste
heat that hot)

None of those are disqualifiers per se.
But there have been many prior closed fluid steam engines, Rankine
engines will be with you always,  water as lubricant is a good trick
if you can do it (gas with no touching parts is better and NASA  have
8++ years of operation to demonstrate that it works).
There are many small engine that will save the world wannabees. I will
be very pleased when/if one succeeds. So far none have. Stirling is
doing as well as anything in the external combustion  race, so far.
Mr Diesel's fine concept is arguably the market leader in internal
combustion so far. Not as good as Mr Stirling's products in
efficiency. but vastly cheaper to make.

500F source heat allows about 2;1 temperature ratio or 50% Carnot efficiency.
Actual overall efficiency will be much lower. Hopefully in the 10%-20%
range. Maybe less.

A Cyclone engine will  hopefully be sold for substantially less than
an equivalent output Stirling engine.
And will hopefully be more compact.

> Most of all: It's REAL!
> http://www.cyclonepower.com

This was about as real
http://green.autoblog.com/2009/07/08/blast-from-the-past-nasas-stirling-powered-amc-spirit/

Very real.
I'll have one (if free)
www.stirlingengines.org.uk/manufact/manf/misc/subm.html
http://www.sesusa.org/submarine.pdf
1988 precursor:   http://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=432895

If you EVER get an opportunity to visit this museum do so.
THE best technical museum I've ever seen.
    1978 precursor
    <http://www.deutsches-museum.de/en/collections/machines/power-engines/combustion-engines/hot-air-machines/submarine-stirling-motor/>

Scant on information.
But very real.
    http://www.whispergen.com/


Russell's photos:

Model Stirling Engines
NOT Russell's models

     http://bit.ly/StirlingEngineModels

Inside a Whispergen (cutaway of real unit - "operates")

        http://bit.ly/WhispergenCutaway

Bonus - StormRider Wind turbine - 14 photos, many similar. Some show
closeups of centrifugal pitch control mechanism.

    http://bit.ly/Stormrider_14photos

       StormRider home page

              http://bit.ly/StormRider


Russell McMaho

2011\02\03@161208 by Randy Abernathy

flavicon
face
I took a look as well.  It does look good.  Did anyone notice that they licensed
Great Wall Alternative Power Systems Ltd. in China to do the prototypes for the
production versions and also they are going to target the rural areas of China
as their first market?  Why didn't some alternative power outfit here in the
U.S. grab it up?  

Randy Abernathy
CNC and Industrial Machinery service, repair, installation and design

4626 Old Stilesboro Rd NW
Acworth, GA 30101
Fax: 770-974-5295
Phone: 678-982-0235
E-mail: spam_OUTrandyabernathyTakeThisOuTspambellsouth.net




 _____  
From: .....piclist-bouncesKILLspamspam@spam@mit.edu [piclist-bouncesspamKILLspammit.edu] On Behalf Of
.....jimKILLspamspam.....jpes.com
Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 1:41 PM
To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
Subject: RE: [TECH] Cyclone Engine



All,

I looked the site over a bit and looked at the theory of operation, and
it seems viable to me.
It also looks promising.  It seems to have only pros and no cons.  Or
at least none that I can see.
Except for the fact that they are still in development, and not quite
ready for prime time.
But, given that, they look very good indeed.

I have an application in mind right now that would be a good fit for
one of  these.  Or at least,
I think so anyway.  We'll see if my application can come to fruition.


Regards,

Jim



> ---{Original Message removed}

2011\02\03@163147 by PICdude

flavicon
face
About 15-30 mins away from where I'm at currently, and I agree -- this  area is not known as a high-tech center.  Though there have been some     I saw that and first thought it might be interesting to see if  they'd let my few high-schoolers (and me) get a tour.

Cheers,
-Neil.


Quoting Bob Blick <EraseMEbobblickspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTftml.net>:

{Quote hidden}

>

2011\02\03@172313 by YES NOPE9

flavicon
face
>
> On Feb 3, 2011, at 2:31 PM, PICdude wrote:
>
> About 15-30 mins away from where I'm at currently, and I agree -- this  
> area is not known as a high-tech center.  Though there have been some  
>  I saw that and first thought it might be interesting to see if  
> they'd let my few high-schoolers (and me) get a tour.
>
> Cheers,
> -Neil.

I hope you go look.... and take a video camera and ask questions.
I wonder why James N. is so sure it is real ?
gus in denver  99gu

2011\02\03@185158 by RussellMc

face picon face
> I hope you go look.... and take a video camera and ask questions.
> I wonder why James N. is so sure it is real ?

The Cyclone is the ultimate vaporware :-)
(That's a joke, James)(Vapor - steam, get it ? ...)

This video could be faked but they would be very naughty people indeed if it was

        http://www.cyclonepower.com/video.html


Two patents doth not a Summer make, but -

        http://www.cyclonepower.com/patent.html

A well publicised attempt at the land speed steam engine record
probably needs a steam engine

FWIW to achieve 160 mph they will need about 125 HP.
Well faired and all tucked in a motorcycle needs about 30 HP to 'ton'.
Air drag increases as cube of speed.
(160/100)^3 x 30 ~= 125 HP


 Russel

2011\02\04@051333 by Michael Rigby-Jones

flavicon
face


> -----Original Message-----
> From: piclist-bouncesspamspam_OUTmit.edu [@spam@piclist-bouncesKILLspamspammit.edu] On
Behalf
> Of James Newton
> Sent: 03 February 2011 18:26
> To: 'Microcontroller discussion list - Public.'
> Subject: [TECH] Cyclone Engine
>
> I keep hearing about cold fusion, sterling engines, fuel cells, air
cars,
> bio fuel... Every one of those has /fatal/ flaws.
>
> THIS Cyclone Engine is what we should be getting excited about.
Efficiency
> between gas and diesel, burns ANYTHING cleanly and completely. No NOx.
No
> oil, no transmission, low maintenance.
>
I'd be a bit more excited if it had at least some efficiency advantages
over the common or garden diesel engine.  The "low maintenance" claim
won't really be proven until the engine is actually in use.

As regards burning "anything", how do they actually start ignition of
the low volatility fuels mentioned?  e.g. coal dust, diesel etc?

Regards

Mike

=======================================================================
This e-mail is intended for the person it is addressed to only. The
information contained in it may be confidential and/or protected by
law. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you must
not make any use of this information, or copy or show it to any
person. Please contact us immediately to tell us that you have
received this e-mail, and return the original to us. Any use,
forwarding, printing or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.
No part of this message can be considered a request for goods or
services.
=======================================================================

2011\02\04@124049 by William \Chops\ Westfield

face picon face

On Feb 3, 2011, at 10:26 AM, James Newton wrote:

> burns ANYTHING cleanly and completely.

I find it difficult to believe that this is possible.  There are a lot  of purely mechanical advantages to the fossil fuels we use now, even  supposing that a proposed replacement doesn't have what would  currently be considered unacceptable levels of particular pollution...

(that nit out of the way, I don't see any reason that a better  external combustion engine isn't exciting for a lot of other reasons...)

BillW

2011\02\06@232847 by RussellMc

face picon face
> On Feb 3, 2011, at 10:26 AM, James Newton wrote:
>> burns ANYTHING cleanly and completely.

> I find it difficult to believe that this is possible.

It's not :-).
I think that what they mean is that it uses "external combustion" and
so does not have several of the problems internal combustion spark or
compression ignition engines do. hen using atmospheric air as an
oxidiser you tend to get Oxides of nitrogen as a byproduct. residual
level depends on how much effort and $ you want to expend. If CO2 is
not 'clean" then nothing burning carbon is going to be 'clean" without
CO2 sequestration of some sort. But an EC engines gives you a good
star\t over an IC engine wrt pollution.

> (that nit out of the way, I don't see any reason that a better
> external combustion engine isn't exciting for a lot of other reasons...)

Yes. A question is, IS this a 'better" external combustion engine? It
is at heart "yet another steam engine". It may be very good indeed,
but so far it's not obvious that it is violently different from many
other past steam engine dreams. And "violently different" tends to be
what's is required to break free from 'more off the same but
different'.

A Stirling Engine [tm] IS violently different than anything else that
is commonly in use at present. this doesn't per se make it better or
best or good enough to be what it takes. The giant Phlips corporation
spent perhaps several decades playing at Stirling Engine development,
and had engines driving cars and buses, and finally gave up. They did
not consider that the SE was fatally flawed for the purposes they were
trying to put it to. They in fact considered that it was only a matter
of spending enough time and money on it. Company fortunes at the time
lead them to rationalise operations and 'get back to basics' and core
products, and SE's were definitely not either. BUT they stated that if
somebody spent the sum they considered likely to be required (figures
of $US10 billion and $US30 billion lurk in my mind) then the payback
period in petroleum savings would be about 4 months worldwide. Most
people would be very happy with that sort of payback period :-) . (I
know of  a product that achieves that in a legitimate manner, but
that's another story).

I will be pleased to see Cyclone stir up a storm. But I'll be
surprised but pleased if they ever get much past Florida.

Even the "Whispergen" Stirling Engine based CHP system has got from NZ
to Spain and UK and into ocean going yachts world wide. When the
Cyclone manages to exceed Whispergen's results to date it will have
achieved a notable success.




                    Russel

2011\02\07@005312 by William \Chops\ Westfield

face picon face

On Feb 6, 2011, at 8:28 PM, RussellMc wrote:

> good enough to be what it takes.

It seems to be big business to sell "alternative" technologies to the  third world, where the more popular technologies fail for reasons that  don't apply in the first world.  (Bogolights being a good example.)   It may not support the high profit margins and development costs  needed to overtake popular technology in the first world, but there  are an awful lot of potential customers, and it's got that whole "feel  good" payback to it.
Hopefully such attempts are legitimate.  Intentionally (and actively)  defrauding the poor would be morally reprehensible (more so than the  sort of casual exploitation that many would claim happens all to often  already.)

BillW

2011\02\07@023230 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 4:28 AM, RussellMc <KILLspamapptechnzKILLspamspamgmail.com> wrote:

> The giant Phlips corporation
> spent perhaps several decades playing at Stirling Engine development,
> and had engines driving cars and buses, and finally gave up.


There are many engine designs not used or exploited yet. Good example is the
wankel engine that was invented in 1929 but virtually was abandoned till
recently, when Mazda RX8 made it successful -- even though it is lighter and
smaller than otto or diesel engine and a 1.3 litres one produces
a tremendous 250 BHP.

The is a promise with this cyclone engine: It 'burns anything' so till we
have not got cleaner fuel we can continue using petrol or diesel or even
kerosene.

Tama

2011\02\07@055211 by cdb

flavicon
face


::Good example is the wankel engine that was invented in 1929 but virtually ::was abandoned till recently, when Mazda RX8 made it successful

The Wartburg (Czech I think) used the Wankel engine in the early 70's, our neighbour had one.

Colin
--
cdb, RemoveMEcolinTakeThisOuTspambtech-online.co.uk on 7/02/2011
Web presence: http://www.btech-online.co.uk   Hosted by:  http://www.justhost.com.au
 

2011\02\07@062057 by apptech

face
flavicon
face
> ::Good example is the Wankel engine that was invented in 1929 but
> virtually
> ::was abandoned till recently, when Mazda RX8 made it successful

Most conceivable engine topologies have been investigated at least theoretically and many in practice. There are many possible rotary topologies - the Wankel is one of many. All have their good and bad points. The Wankel is/was no exception, but it evidently had a better cost benefit ratio than most. The relative dearth of Wankels on the road at present is some indication of their relative merit in market terms. If you want very high power densities in an internal combustion engine they are hard to beat.. Fuel economy tend to make them unattractive in many cases.

There is a large body of people generally unseen beavering away trying to find every possible nook and cranny to Edison like extract new inventions from. New ways of building rotating machines is one popular area. There are some interesting books on such subjects - none that I can recall the titles of but long ago I saw enough of the occasional book of this sort to make me realise that finding hidden niches in most things mechanical is harder than it may appear. I'm about to try one myself "shortly". No details and, no, it's not a motor. I'll tell you if I succeed (but it will probably be general news anyway if I do ;-) - so it's unlikely. )

Russell

2011\02\07@062347 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 10:52 AM, cdb <spamBeGonecolinspamBeGonespambtech-online.co.uk> wrote:

> The Wartburg (Czech I think) used the Wankel engine in the early 70's, our
> neighbour had one.
>

German actually (Eastern-German), that was the successor of NSU. I have not
read anything about it in it's wikipedia page but on wankel's page they
mention NSU for sure. I only remember of the 2 stroke engines they made (we
used to have this brand in Hungary before the political change)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wartburg_(car)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSU_Motorenwerke_AG

Hmm, interesting info on NSU's page:

First it says:
"In 1964 NSU offered the world's first Wankel engined
</wiki/Wankel_engine> car:
the Wankelspider."

then:
"The NSU Ro 80 </wiki/NSU_Ro_80> was the second mass-produced two-rotor
Wankel-powered vehicle after the Mazda Cosmo </wiki/Mazda_Cosmo>. "

and also says:
"Only Mazda </wiki/Mazda> continued developing the Wankel engine."

Anyway, wondering what is the reason not using this type of engine if that
is obviously produces more power out of less combustion volume and smaller
mass of metal structure?

Tamas



{Quote hidden}

>

2011\02\07@093952 by Matt Bennett

flavicon
face
On Mon, February 7, 2011 5:23 am, Tamas Rudnai wrote:

> and also says:
> "Only Mazda </wiki/Mazda> continued developing the Wankel engine."
>
> Anyway, wondering what is the reason not using this type of engine if that
> is obviously produces more power out of less combustion volume and smaller
> mass of metal structure?
>
> Tamas

#1 reason- they don't last. Cow-orker has an RX8.  His car has less than
60,000 miles and he is now scheduled to get his 3rd engine (2nd
replacement) under the original factory warranty from Mazda. The design is
ioncredibly simple and concept is great for a lot of power in a small
package (and basically unlimited redline due to its inherent balance not
putting huge stress on the crank at high RPM). Hardest problem to overcome
(I believe) is keeping the apex seals in operation.

If you're willing to consider intense inspection and replacing the engine
as part of normal periodic maintenance, a Wankel engine is a great option,
particularly in cases where weight is a premium, like aircraft.

Matt Bennett
Just outside of Austin, TX
30.510843,-97.919286

The views I express are my own, not that of my employer, a large
multinational corporation that you are familiar with

2011\02\07@100419 by Michael Watterson

face picon face
On 07/02/2011 14:39, Matt Bennett wrote:
> Hardest problem to overcome
> (I believe) is keeping the apex seals in operation.
yes. That's the flaw

Some thought a while back that some sort of composite ceramic might be the answer.

2011\02\07@101114 by RussellMc

face picon face
>> Hardest problem to overcome
>> (I believe) is keeping the apex seals in operation.
> yes. That's the flaw
>
> Some thought a while back that some sort of composite ceramic might be
> the answer.

A VERY thick block of wood under the accelerator pedal may help.
These engines tend to encourage people to drive them very fast and
wearing big grins.
While they last.
Known as V8 beaters in days of yore.


2011\02\07@114133 by John Gardner

picon face
In the early 80s I was working for an engine rebuilder, and got interested
in what it would cost to rejuvenate the fleet of defunct RX-3s Hawaii was
littered with at the time.

Short answer was, more than it was worth - You could buy a new car for
what replacing the engine cost; no aftermarket in parts, so DIY also pro-
hibitively expensive.

These days there are rotary specialists that can do whatever you want.
As others have pointed out, you can really make 'em go - Although the
5.0L solution is still cost-effective, last I looked...  :)

Jac

2011\02\07@122407 by RussellMc

face picon face
> It seems to be big business to sell "alternative" technologies to the
> third world, where the more popular technologies fail for reasons that
> don't apply in the first world.  (Bogolights being a good example.)
> It may not support the high profit margins and development costs
> needed to overtake popular technology in the first world, but there
> are an awful lot of potential customers, and it's got that whole "feel
> good" payback to it.
> Hopefully such attempts are legitimate.  Intentionally (and actively)
> defrauding the poor would be morally reprehensible (more so than the
> sort of casual exploitation that many would claim happens all to often
> already.)

Postscript - written last.
It's rubbish.
Indian rich "innovators" ripping off Indian BOP poor with help of US
expert in disrutibe innovation (possibly out of his depth
technically?)(you'd hope not). And a substantial devlopment grant from
a US benefactor.
Power supply is a "jazzed up" "laptop type supply". I wonder how mains
modulated much ripple it has on it? I wonder what the Peltier lifetime
is or if buyers are told?

___________

Here's an example that may be an example.
The gist of this article is that it is a fantastic new low cost, low
energy use high tech solution of the poor's (under $US5/day income)
refrigeration needs in India.

To me it looks like a dressed up overpriced Peltier based Cooler which
will almost certainly have a very low active element life, poor energy
efficiency, and low performance.


http://www.gizmag.com/refridgerator-rural-india-chotukool/13680/

$US69 for a Peltier cooler seems a bit steep in the context..

________________

Gargoyles ...

Looks as bad as one would expect, alas.

This moderately long discussion gives no indication that it is
anything other than a (POSSIBLY  well designed) Peltier coolbox.

http://innovation.hindustantimes.com/summit-news/the-new-cool-mass-market-godrej.php

Yeah. Right

          http://chotucool.com/

Disheartening pictures here.
High end insulation [tm]

  http://chotucool.com/CoolingSolution/features.html

Specs
5A, 55 Watt basic
Current for 43 l unit is a typo - should be 5.3A.

http://chotucool.com/ChotuProdcatalog.aspx?Cat=chotu&subCat=chotukool

2011\02\07@133413 by Randy Abernathy

flavicon
face
I actually inquired with Cyclone Power Technologies regarding the efficiency of
their present engine designs.  Below is the response I received from their
marketing manager.


"The WHE is designed for lower temperature and pressures.  We will need about
1100 degrees F to keep the working temp of the WHE at 600 degrees F.  The fuel
consumption for the WHE is approximately 25,000BTU per Hp per hour so for full
electrical output of 10 kW we need about 450,000 BTU's.  Thermal efficiency is
around 11%


The other engine, the Mark V is more efficient and runs at higher temperatures
and pressures.  The combustion (flame temp) needs to be around 2100 degrees F to
keep the working temp at 1200 degrees F.  At this temperature the fuel
consumption is approximately 8500 BTU per Hp per Hour or 850,000 BTU's to
produce 55 kW electrical output.  Thermal efficiency is approximately 32%, the
higher the temp the better the efficiency."


Some of you may have done the same thing just for curiosity.



Randy Abernathy
CNC and Industrial Machinery service, repair, installation and design

4626 Old Stilesboro Rd NW
Acworth, GA 30101
Fax: 770-974-5295
Phone: 678-982-0235
E-mail: RemoveMErandyabernathyspamTakeThisOuTbellsouth.net




 _____  
From: piclist-bouncesEraseMEspam.....mit.edu [EraseMEpiclist-bouncesspammit.edu] On Behalf Of
RussellMc
Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2011 11:28 PM
To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
Subject: Re: [TECH] Cyclone Engine


> On Feb 3, 2011, at 10:26 AM, James Newton wrote:
>> burns ANYTHING cleanly and completely.

> I find it difficult to believe that this is possible.

It's not :-).
I think that what they mean is that it uses "external combustion" and
so does not have several of the problems internal combustion spark or
compression ignition engines do. hen using atmospheric air as an
oxidiser you tend to get Oxides of nitrogen as a byproduct. residual
level depends on how much effort and $ you want to expend. If CO2 is
not 'clean" then nothing burning carbon is going to be 'clean" without
CO2 sequestration of some sort. But an EC engines gives you a good
star\t over an IC engine wrt pollution.

> (that nit out of the way, I don't see any reason that a better
> external combustion engine isn't exciting for a lot of other reasons...)

Yes. A question is, IS this a 'better" external combustion engine? It
is at heart "yet another steam engine". It may be very good indeed,
but so far it's not obvious that it is violently different from many
other past steam engine dreams. And "violently different" tends to be
what's is required to break free from 'more off the same but
different'.

A Stirling Engine [tm] IS violently different than anything else that
is commonly in use at present. this doesn't per se make it better or
best or good enough to be what it takes. The giant Phlips corporation
spent perhaps several decades playing at Stirling Engine development,
and had engines driving cars and buses, and finally gave up. They did
not consider that the SE was fatally flawed for the purposes they were
trying to put it to. They in fact considered that it was only a matter
of spending enough time and money on it. Company fortunes at the time
lead them to rationalise operations and 'get back to basics' and core
products, and SE's were definitely not either. BUT they stated that if
somebody spent the sum they considered likely to be required (figures
of $US10 billion and $US30 billion lurk in my mind) then the payback
period in petroleum savings would be about 4 months worldwide. Most
people would be very happy with that sort of payback period :-) . (I
know of  a product that achieves that in a legitimate manner, but
that's another story).

I will be pleased to see Cyclone stir up a storm. But I'll be
surprised but pleased if they ever get much past Florida.

Even the "Whispergen" Stirling Engine based CHP system has got from NZ
to Spain and UK and into ocean going yachts world wide. When the
Cyclone manages to exceed Whispergen's results to date it will have
achieved a notable success.




                    Russel

2011\02\07@165819 by John Gardner

picon face
Per low-cost, "sustainable" refrigeration, these things have been around
since the 20s. They work - And continue to work. There's not much to go
wrong, given reasonable care - Fuel is anything that burns...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icy_Ball

http://crosleyautoclub.com/IcyBall/crosley_icyball.html

Note the link to modern examples at the bottom of the page. The hardest
part of the exercise is getting good data on the thermodynamic properties
of NH3/H2O mixtures. When I went looking 20+ years ago, the American
Gas Association's Institute of Gas Technology, Research Bulletin # 34,
"Physical And Thermodynamic Properties of Ammonia-Water Mixtures",
was exactly what was needed.

Hopefully still in print, or available on line. If tempted to build one, please
note you do need to understand the engineering detail <before> building,
so you end up with a refrigerator, not a bomb - No kidding...

Jac

2011\02\07@173616 by RussellMc

face picon face
On 8 February 2011 10:58, John Gardner <RemoveMEgoflo3EraseMEspamEraseMEgmail.com> wrote:
> Per low-cost, "sustainable" refrigeration, these things have been around
> since the 20s. They work - And continue to work. There's not much to go
> wrong, given reasonable care - Fuel is anything that burns...
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icy_Ball
>
> http://crosleyautoclub.com/IcyBall/crosley_icyball.html

I had these links from a discussion last year  with K\Jack & James.
I'd not heard of them until then.

VERY worthwhile to look at.
Very much a "don't try this at home" device.
ie 'Understand what you are taking on'
See Russell & Olin's larger versions of that recently:-)


        http://crosleyautoclub.com/IcyBall/HomeBuilt/HomeBuilt.html

Details on how to cool, or kill, yourself.

   http://crosleyautoclub.com/IcyBall/HomeBuilt/HallPlans/IB_Directions.html

Some useful patent references and construction comments.
Comments on the best way to run it to make it most effective give good
insight into operation.


     Russel

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2011 , 2012 only
- Today
- New search...