Please come back again!
Your blog was interesting enough I will definitely be back from time to time.And you know about Harry and many others who are working in more recent times.Like many steamers ,I fit the remark that you made about disagreeing with others as well as yourself.
Much of what I experimented with is from Brayton cycle like the Adams nuke engine direction,though I don’t think you will have as much radiation from wood as nuke fuel,the heat extraction aspects are proving interesting as you go back to water instead of using helium like in the Adams Atomic Engine.(in some cases actually turbo compounding a piston- to get piston torque and multi pass -turbine power).I guess got stumbled into this hobby as aircraft mechanic who noticed that early jet would have never happened with water injected steam(it doubles the hp
on the same fuel on planes like the early b52’s,etc. Like Adams, I taking it to a 100% and looking
at combined cycle numbers for a goal on my projects)
Guess I talked to much …thanks for doing a good job with blog.
June 27, 2014 Dear Arnold Walker, Thanks for the positive comments. I have found steam power to be a fascinating and infinitely complex subject. We are always looking for more and better and more efficient. It is seldom the engine design that is the issue but the whole combustion and heat exchange business. I have always thought that a combined Ericsson and Rankine and Brayton Cycle would be the most efficient. The Ericsson is because a whole lot of air which is mostly Nitrogen is heated up to 3,000 degrees F. That is because it (the air) is needed for combustion in the first place and for heat exchange to the heat exchanger metal in the second place. A person might as well get some work out of heating up and cooling off all of that Nitrogen. As an aside, I have explained my very good invention to many people and none of them have thought it to be a good idea. No one will even steal it from me. The problem develops when a person wants to make something small and light and cheap that will fit in a vehicle. As for combined cycles I recommend these two books: “Combined Power Plants, Including Combined Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT) Plants” by Sir John H. Horlock and “Thermodynamics and Heat Powered Cycles, A Cognitive Engineering Approach” by Chih Wu. It broadens the mind to read about all of the possibilities that have been thought of. There are always topping and bottoming cycles to look at when things are not complex enough. One should always start with a stationary power plant and make it work before trying to package it into a vehicle–breadboarding is the proper term here. With regards to Harry Schoell’s work at Cyclone, he is a pure inventor and looking for the ideal. I will let others debate the practicality of this. Harry was trying to solve the two basic steam engine problems: lubrication so that high temperatures could be used, higher than lubricating oil can handle, and corrosion as iron and steam do not mix. Both of these are materials issues to be solved with plastic, aluminum, and stainless steel. It goes without saying that any time one is doing an engineering development project that involves moving parts and new materials it is not easy. In conclusion, we here in the steam world, have always stated that if we have cheap enough fuel then it does not matter how efficient we are thermally. And so there are many ways of looking at things and no, I do not think you have talked too much. Tom Kimmel
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Google+ account. ( Log Out / Change )
Connecting to %s
Notify me of new comments via email.