Oh. Your right. I see why. Now I just feel silly. I told you I couldn't get my head around your great design.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
This is indeed fascinating. And you can use it for pressure-based energy storage, or plain combustion, etc.?
Yes, can be a pump, compressor, pneumatic motor, hydraulic motor or internal combustion engine. Many potential uses I have already written but I also give another example: Propulsion used by the ski jet is the most efficient, but is doable. In order to obtain higher performance jet of water we do not have such performance pumps. With rotary piston you can get a jet of water with high efficiency and even to use for ocean vessels. You can imagine what handling can be achieved by placing the exhaust nozzle of the jet of water in different places on the ship?
I see, this design has the key advantage of having the working fluid mechanically confined, as opposed to non-confined designs like centrifugal pumps or turbines. Some impressive results can be obtained with electric fields acting on saltwater, however, there is thermal dissipation and the sub-breakdown voltage capacitance properties of seawater.
Indeed. The rotary piston hydraulic efficiency is 100%. It would get spectacular results replacing turbines with the rotary piston. Not only has much higher efficiency but is able to take the potential energy instead of kinetic energy. If turbines from thermal,hydroelectric or nuclear power plants are replaced with rotary piston,we can obtain more electricity. Also, if we replace the turbines from the jet engine, we get a new type of engine.
While I think the idea has potential* these four statement are not correct: (1) There is turbulence in the working fluid and it rapidly increases with the rotational speed of the engine. (2) Turbines can achieve high rotational speed, with relatively little turbulance because their blades and the working fluid both rotate together - there is relative low velocity difference. In your engine /pump, there is a static wall for the fluid to rub against. Also your entrance and exit opening (ports) are small so there is high turbulence losses at them at high rotational speeds. (3) That is only partially true. For example the turbines at the base of a hydro-electric dam are generating energy from the potential energy of the higher elevation water. It is true that in most this potential energy is first converted into a high speed jet of water via a nozzle but little energy is lost if it is of large diameter and smooth taper down to smaller diameter. "... Efficiency: Large modern water turbines operate at mechanical efficiencies greater than 90% ... Reaction turbines: Francis Kaplan, Propeller, Bulb, Tube, Straflo Tyson, Gorlov (Freeflow types) Impulse turbine; Pelton, Turgo, Michell-Banki ..." From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_turbine These last three (or at least the Pelton) gain their high efficiency as the jet of water has its velocity reversed (maximum change in momentum) in interaction with spoon-like blades. When these turbine blades have the same tangential velocity as the water jet, then relative to the ground the water jet leaving the spoon-like blade has zero velocity - all the kinetic energy of the jet was captured. (4)No, you would get less energy as electric generators need high rotational speeds. If you tried to get high rotational speed directly from your engine, the internal turbulence would "eat you alive." If you used step-up gears to get the high RPM, then several percent of you energy would be lost in the gears. Dam turbines are 90% efficient - it will be very hard, probably impossible, for you to get 91% efficiency. IN ALL practical turbines the exit path for the working fluid has very large cross section Your design has a very small exit path and great losses as the water tries to squeeze thru the tiny exit. *For example, compared to the complex shape of turbine blades, your flat or circular surfaces are easy to machine.
Yes, it is true at high speeds.But losses are caused only due to turbulence, which also occur in a simple pipeline. No,turbines induce significant turbulence.Turbines require culvert pipes that have turbulence itroduse besides the turbines. If there is relative low velocity difference means as the ceded power is small. What you see is the working principle.I have and the practical for different applications A turbine can not directly take the potential energy. Yes, mechanical efficiency is 90%. But how is energy efficiency? Potential energy of the water is converted into kinetic energy and part of the energy is taken from the turbine. Energy balance is:kinetic energy of water from exit the turbine is subtracted from the initial potential energy.With approximately we can say that:kinetic energy of the water from the turbine entry minus kinetic energy of the water from the exit is equal to the energy ceded. So to increase the system efficiency should be reduced water velocity at the exit. This is not possible to the systems which have turbines. You confused the mechanical efficiency with the hydraulic efficiency. These two and another one (I can not remember now )give totatlitate efficiency. Rotary piston mechanical efficiency due to friction and losses can not say exactly (but greater than 90%). But it is important hydraulic efficiency and overall efficiency. As I've said is just the principle of operation,many shortcomings are reduced to a practical realization. Edit: To understand what I want,for a water height of the dam,the water velocity from the exit of the energy receiving system(rotary piston), at constant flow, to be as small as possible. That means a high capacity rotary piston and low speed.
In a pipeline the velocity profile across the diameter is approximately parabolic. I.e. at the walls of the pipe the velocity (and hence the wall friction) goes to zero. In your design the velocity at the circular wall is maximum - a lot more wall friction. No, having the turbine exit KE be essentially zero is possible and is done, at least in the Pelton type turbines.* The KE of the water leaving a Pelton turbine is essentially zero. I.e. it just falls down as the spoon-like cups it collided with move away at the tangential speed of the turbine. Relative to the ground the water enters the cups at velocity V and they reduce the water velocity to zero, relative to the ground. Stopping the momentum of the entering water requires a force which is supplied by the cups. The third law "reaction force" acts on the cups making the torque that the common shaft applies to the generator, and this shaft is turning at high speed, as the electrical generator requires to be efficient. Yes that low rotational speed will reduce your turbulence losses BUT now you can not directly drive the spinning electrical generator with the same shaft. The electrical generator needs to be turning at high speed to be efficient. You will need some "step up the RPM" gears between your engine and the generator. If your application did not require high RPM shaft, then your system may have an advantage. For example, it could slowly turn a large grind stone to convert wheat into flour, as water power did 100+ years ago. Back then they needed gears to slow the shaft RPM down. I.e. in this application, yours could be the cheaper system, IF the large volume of its circular chamber did not cost too much to make. Effectively, in the electric generation application, you reduce the turbulence losses but will introduce new gear losses. I may be wrong, but I suspect that the new gear losses will be greater than the reduction in turbulence losses; but I am certain high speed step up gears, rated for the full peak power, cost a lot of money, which the direct drive water turbines now in use do not need pay. *As water is essentially incompressible, the product of the flow velocity and the cross section of the tube it is passing thru is a constant. If you look at the typical turbine cross section, you will note that it is small at the entrance and large at the exit. For example if this cross section ratio is 1 to 5 then the exit velocity is 0.2 of the entrance velocity, but the KE is goes as the square of the velocity thus (0.2)^2 = 0.04 or 4% of the entering KE was not captured. That is how large turbines get greater than 90% of the energy captured. Thus, even in non-impulse type turbines, very little KE is left in the exit water, (not captured). The Pelton and and other type impulse turbine can in principle leave zero KE in the exit water but they do have more friction losses as the water must slide around the cup surface with high speed relative to the cup wall surface as its velocity is reduced to zero, with respect to the earth. In these turbines, the water does not "leave the turbine blades" - Instead the turbine blades leaves the zero velocity water, which just falls down to get out of the way of the next blade rotating into the entering water jet. (That is slightly false as the cups are slightly tilted downward to help the water quickly leave, get out of the way, by more than gravity alone can do.) One might also note that your design has a relatively small exit opening so the velocity thru it must be very high. I.e. you will leave a lot of KE in the exiting fluid. That is why your design may work well as a jet-ski pump. Again, let me state I am impressed by your new engine/pump design. Especially the simple machining requirements and few moving parts. I just cannot let you make false claims for it, especially about its efficiency, which will be low compared to other designs for reasons I have discussed.
Billy T, I admit that I am not objective because I am emotionally involved. But any objective opinion is welcome,even if it is not consistent with my opinion. I have searched much, so I can compare the hydraulic turbine and rotary piston. The difference is not as spectacular as I hoped. The efficiency of a power generator with hydraulic turbine is 60% of which 10% is electrical efficiency so remains 70% for the turbine. Calculation of Hydro Power I believe that the rotary piston is more efficient but not spectacular. I think it would be more beneficial to micro and small plants.(Run-off river plants and Low-Head ,less than 30 meters, Hydro electric plants) These hydro electric plants,I think, it would be more advantageous than wind power plant. Due to low production costs and ease of location. Building shape would look like this: Intake and exhaust vents are moving to reach 180 degrees. Intake and exhaust will not be perpandiculare on the stator but will be tangential to semicircle between intake and exhaust openings. Rotary piston will only work 180% degrees. Outer form will be a semicircle combined with a rectangular. Rotary piston will work on the semicircular portion and the inlet and outlet will be placed on the opposite side on the same side of the rectangle. To linearized and balance the system two identical rotary pistons are mounted in series, one after another on the same axle. They running alternatively each of them 180 degrees,in the semicircular portion. From the hydraulic point of view, will be coupled in series. I think, when using steam will be more efficient than the turbine.
Good. That is the correct attitude. Again for what must be the fourth time, I am impressed with your engine/pump design and sure it does have applications. Just you can not claim it is better than all others in all applications. I am essentially sure it will never economically drive electric generators, which require high RPM shaft rotations to be efficient. I suspect it will be mainly in the field of high pressure pumps, including those that are followed by a nozzle that converts the pressure efficiently into a jet for fighting fires or moving a jets ski will be attractive. I also like your suggestion that these pumps may be able to replace tug boats to steer an ocean liner into a slip at the port.
How about if we manage to recover water (or other liquid) so that we can reuse? I have some ideas how to do and where we can use.
Billy T, you mentioned the problem of turbulence, and it seems to be a well-made point that I overlooked. You also mentioned that friction losses from gears amount to several percent. I'd say that's still pretty good. Say you can transform a 300 rpm (5 rot/sec) into a 3000 rpm generator using a few gears. Or maybe none, if you have a huge output diameter for generating power. In this case the loss will be material hysteresis and aerodynamic, probably still less than 10%. This novel 'rotary piston' may be well-suited for fluids with low viscosity, such as gases in a combustion engine. It all comes down to the Reynold's number. A microscopic engine would be well-suited for water instead of a large one.
Yesterday I received. Seoul International Invention Fair 2011, December 1-4, KOREA. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Congratulations, Emil. I hope that you are able to advance your design to the marketplace and be amply rewarded for your efforts and diligence. It can be very difficult to break that barrier, especially where the big players may have vested interests. Designing technology for a more energy efficient future, I wish you the very best of luck with your rotary piston device. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Have you ever seen a Rotary Snow Plow in action? Pretty cool. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Thank you much. Sometimes I need this encouragements. I have bitten the medal, when I received , to test if it is really gold, that I can sell it. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! (I have financial problems) I do not think it is really gold since I was close to break my teeth. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! No, I have not yet seen.
[video=youtube;MrbDU_n1jqM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrbDU_n1jqM[/video] [video=youtube;MXZuRB4P-x8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXZuRB4P-x8[/video] Whoops .... it works ! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
(I'm writing short sentences that should work in google translate) (what is your native language?) I understand the principle in your video. It can work as a pump. Similar constructions already exist. It could also be a motor, such motors are used in pneumatic tools. It is not a new invention. Now about Wankel engines. As somebody allready mentioned, Masda have been using it, Reneault too, so obviously it was not killed by GM. Instead, it became opsolete. You see, it is not possible ot get a very high compression ratio with an Wankel (or any other rotary type engine, for that matter), and this means that you cannot get a really good fuel economy. Forget about whatever company (GM, Exxon, you have it) suppressing ingenious motor designs for fun and profit: The profit potential in fuel economy is huge, and if there was anything better than the conventional piston, manufacturers would be scrambling to market it first. Hans
