Resonance, Traveling Wave: Cheap Way to Compress Air?

These things ought to be selling like hotcakes by now...so where is the working model? (I.e., one that takes considerably less energy than a normal compressor.)

Oh...it's just verbiage.

Let me be the first to call "bullshift!"

I don't know if the rules and definitions for patents has changed since 1936 when this patent was issued, but in the present day this would be considered a 'design' patent rather than a 'utility' patent. The key to this is the claims section.

In the claims section, the inventor's claims all relate to the design of the device, not what it does. There are no claims that refer to anything the object can do. In the preceding sections of the patent, where the device is described in mechanical detail, the inventor makes statements about what the device can do. But none of these things are mentioned in the claims section so they are (practically) irrelevant to the patent office in view of issuing the patent.

So in this case, saying such-and-such a device is 'patented' falsely implies a utility patent for an unusual mechanical device utilizing an unknown or poorly understood physical principle, whereas in fact the patent is really for the design of a particular type of air compressor with no special utility claims.

The result was a compression unit so cheap to run that it literally made extra air.

sounds like someones breaking the law again.

How does it make extra air? And then it gets worse..... The energy source is the ambient heat already in the air, being upgraded to a useful condition by..... resonance circuiit and all that. Where is this power coming from to have the sound wave to hammer?..... its not April 1st

Interesting diversion.

Not worth spit.

You can't get more energy out of something than it is storing, unless you somehow put more energy into it.

I'd be interested to see the explaination of how it, "literally made extra air".

Seems believable to me and just perfect to use on an air powered car!

How can I invest in this worthy project? Are US dollars still acceptable? Do you have a post office box I can send money to?

I think you are well on your way to inventing the "tuned exhaust"

Whoa! Hold it for a second!

You guys are way, way too hasty in passing iudgement on this fellow. He may have his own interpretation of the laws of thermodynamics, and especially on entropy, but so did one of the greatest physicist, Iames Clerk Maxwell, the matemathical father of electromagnetism.

Please read up on "Mawell's demon". It is very enlightening. It is simple. All it takes is securing the services of your personal demon in sorting molecules this and that way. Presto, the invention becomes reality.

How do you secure the personal services of a demon, you ask? Well, there are subiects one does not speak in polite company! Call me privately, and I will fill you in.

Correction: "Maxwell's demon", a classic in teaching physics. My misspelling.

As drawn in the patent papers, this is an overly-complicated and inefficient air compressor, nothing more . There is nothing presented to indicate otherwise. The claims also describe an ordinary, inefficient air compressor, nothing more.

Mythology has developed around many old patents.

If you have been interested in this since 1988, why did you not simply build one to demonstrate that it does not work???? Given that there is no reason that this device should work as you* have claimed, the next step is to build one and show that it works -- you've had 23 years so far, but have failed to do so.

How can the promoters of such magic ("The result was a compression unit so cheap to run that it literally made extra air.") come across as anything other than 1. absolute freakin idiots, or 2. frauds? Why subject yourself to embarrassment... unless you think there is "something in it" for you?

Come back when it is running and has been verified to work as you* claim by a reliable independent source. Then you may be greeted by something other than laughter.

"must have been a tuned resonance circuit of some kind." Oh come now. I can't imagine any real engineer saying this, unless he was completely unfamiliar with compressors (sanitary engineer, software engineer?).

* the patent makes no such claims.

claiming a resonant frequency like effect is a classic tactic for the over unity crowd

another is attempting to have the audience prove their pet world changing theory

I must admit that I have reversed my position on this engine/compressor combo.

The missing link, which Doctor* Lutherman has failed to mention, is that the idea was stolen by the Nazis, after Neal's daughter was kidnapped by the Nazis for leverage. This is what changed my mind. (Please take this seriously, and refrain from laughing as you read the data in this link.) Neal, the selfish little twit, got his daughter back... but all of us now live in a world in which energy is not free. Had he done the right thing, and sacrificed his daughter for the greater good, there would be no wars today, because we would all be fat, dumb, and happy living on the free energy in ambient air.

We know that Stanley Meyer's water-fueled car idea was stolen by the Belgians, who poisoned Meyer, but then made it look like a natural event. The Belgians, we believe, were the ones responsible for having Meyer successfully prosecuted by the state of Ohio for fraud. The idea that Meyer was a fraud is completely ridiculous because Meyer said his water car worked, and others who have been unfairly and successfully prosecuted for fraud have said it worked too. Obviously, if more than one person says a concept works, it works. Lutherman has made that clear by refraining from presenting any data or demonstration of the Neal device actually working -- his word alone is sufficient, no matter how idiotic his assertions appear. If a reliable and highly regarded person, such as Doctor Lutherman, says that the son of the inventor says the device worked, then it worked. About this there can be no debate. The only debate can be about how it works. My considered opinion is that it works via van der Waals attraction.

Following this line of thought... We know the German's have Neal's technology, and that the Belgians have Meyer's. Can it POSSIBLY BE A COINCIDENCE that some Mercedes cars now have AIR suspension, and Belgians essentially rule the world in the production of THICK WAFFLES?? It has been estimated that a Belgian waffle takes IN EXCESS OF twice the energy to cook a small, toaster sized waffle!

There are countless examples of inventors who "knew to much" being persecuted by big oil, and having their ideas stolen by our enemies. In India, it is common to see cars getting 300 MPG, by using 300 MPG carburetors. It is well known that the Chinese can produce cheap goods, because all their electricity is generated for free, using Bedini magnet motors. This much we know for sure. So it makes logical good sense that Neal's engine compressor worked exactly as planned, and that the technology is now being used to provide a comfortable ride in Mercedes automobiles. Edsel: hundreds of units sold. Mercedes: millions of units sold. Need we say more?

The connection between the water-fueled car and Belgian waffles is too obvious to require explication. About that all of us, including Doctor Lutherman, can agree.

Eistein said "Der lieber Gott nicht würfelt" (The good God does not play dice.) Thus, Einstein has demonstrated that you can prove a negative. Einstein has not seen God playing dice; therefore God does not play dice. In a similar vane, Lutherman has shown that science does not count, because he knows nothing of science, and is just starting to learn math. Therefore this device must work, and no mere evidence is required. Only belief is required.

Believe.

* The least we can do is award him an honorary Doctorate.

I am feeling bad because we have not provided many possible theories upon which Neal's free-energy compressor might work. I fear we have been shackled by reality. That's unfair.

I propose that it works on van der Waals force, because this is what allows Geckos to walk on the ceiling. The connection is too obvious to belabor: the van der Waals force is funded by Geico. Prior to Geico's adds, geckos had to obey the laws of gravity. I defy anyone to produce legitimate videotape evidence from the 1930's that shows geckos walking on ceilings.

However, I would like to get CR4 community feedback on these possible scientific effects too.

• Coanda effect
• Bernoulli effect
• Law of Attraction (the Secret)
• The Kutta-Joukowski theorem
• All Things Considered (NPR)
• Mutual inductance
• Truthiness (Colbert)
• Ohm's law
• Lenz principal
• Think and Grow Rich (Napolean Hill)

I think those are the main theories for consideration, but please feel free to add more. Caution: you must be able to say that you "believe" or "strongly believe" that a theory is appropriate for inclusion. You need not, of course, provide remotely logical reasons: we are here to support Doctor Lutherman's ideas, not tear them down.

a whole new thread then, a lot of fluff here on this thread.

packrat is that you?

Steady on there chap; I've already dis-proven Ohm's Law.

I have two parallel conductors, 10m long, insulated from each other and insulated at both ends.

When I connect my DVM between the two conductors on 'AC Volts' range, it shows 13.4V.

So I have no current because there's no connection (I=0), but V = I x R , so my voltage reading (V) should be zero.

So you can strike Ohm's Law of your list. Huh.

Right you are! It has long been known that Ohm's "Law" is not a real Law. It exists in no statutes.

However, it can be employed as a principal to explain how the Neal compressor works. Clearly, your conductors are extracting energy from ambient air. That's why you get a voltage reading. Your conductors, unless they are very small, have very low resistance. You will agree that .001 ohm is realistic for large diameter cables. Therefore, because I = V/R I = 13.4/.001 = 13,400 amps. Power is even more impressive, at 13.4 x 13,400 = 179560 watts. If 179560 watts can be drawn from the ambient air, by wires, then certainly the Neal machine can do the same, or better. There is a near perfect analogy between electrical flow and air flow: Pressure = voltage, flow = current, etc.

Thus, Ohms Law is at least as likely as "resonance" as an explanation for the magical properties of the Neal compressor.

Bravo!

I don't think I have ever seen a post so apt - - GA

I'd like to thanks AP#2 & AP#3

they have brought some much needed clarity to this subject

laws?

we don't need no steekin badges

Thank you for an explaination that someone even with my meager intelligence, (and taking into account that I have been branded as a fake by the genuis Tomstudy) can understand.

Tom, by the way, has deecided that he has mastered the intricacies and protocol of this web site after 8 posts. He's a really quick study. He explained to me how the system was supposed to work, and the error of my ways, after only 3 posts, so, he's gotta be smart as a tack.

This "discussion" has been in the tank for some time.

ahh don't you love when people explain how things are supposed to work, all evidence to the contrary not withstanding

I don't know why, but when you talk of Tomstudy, the phase comes to mind. "Dingleberrys are not only year round, but they're not even a fruit".

Why is that?

You could look at how a scram-jet works, but they take considerable hp to get going and a fair bit to keep going.

Perhaps having a look at the total system power might be an idea - instead of focusing on what might appear to be a 'free effect' - when ignoring all other inputs.

In partial response to the other replies. Not much to respond to because I was looking for people to read some of the pages submitted by a mechanical engineer and posted on the blog. I have too much information to repost very much of it here.

I know the patent claims don't address the scary parts that make everybody start shouting and trying to out-smarty-pants each other, however, the patent office certainly did object to the scary parts and that's why the inventor took his machine to Washington DC and secured a patent. His son went to Washington with him and talked to me at some length, and yes, in fact the machine did make extra air. I was told about this patent by a friend of the inventor, who died in 1970. My current goal is to develop a good model of how the anomalous effect was done, not just whether it was possible, and the engineer working on this wants criticism of the usable kind. He wants to find his mistakes and welcomes such criticism. I try to ignore most of the name-calling which comes from people who haven't studied the theory or the evidence, but I still have to say a few things about that too.

Obviously a 14 cylinder compressor has some things going against it in terms of friction, moving parts, expense, and bulk, but terms like "inefficient" are being thrown around here like the user of the term has license to use the term without first defining it within a context. Actually, education + skepticism does not = omniscience.

If this does work by resonance, the increased number of cylinders is what generates the unusual effect to begin with. So for extra trouble we get free compressed air, I wouldn't call that "inefficient" and then just walk away, but then I'm the one who has compiled thousands of pages of research. Acoustic power is used to do all kinds of odd-sounding stuff. Pump water, crush stone, replace the compressors in refrigerators, too numerous to mention here.

Yes there has been a working model, the machinist who built it was in touch with me for three years while he worked on it, and quit because he couldn't afford to do it any more. His results were positive. Comments like "you should be rich by now if this were real" are almost too superficial and cynical to mention. Almost. The details of all my arguments are easily available to anyone who cares to look into it. Nothing ever happens easily or automatically in this world and having a good idea is no guarantee of anything. The worthiness of the product does not make it easier to go to the store and the machine shop and the professional engineer to buy everything needed to get it built.

Thanks to those few who are not part of the usual boring effort to keep a good thing from being discussed on these forums. True support of this project is being sought, and by that I mean specific engineering comments by qualified people, vs the same generalities and insults I've heard a thousand times, and the place to start is to look at the blog and respond to the work we are doing to try to pin this theory down.

http://selffilling.blogspot.com

Luther

I think you mis understand the nature of this place

extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof

of which you have provided none

I'll do some of your ground work for you

but you really should learn to post images & proper links yourself

since it's your blog I'll assume there is no problem sharing images & text

Holy cow... the (mechanical) frictional losses ALONE in that thing would be horrendous!

I always giggle a little when a layperson gets so excited by the "magical" terminology thrown around by inventors of such devices. Resonance is not magical -- heck, it doesn't even rise to the level of mysterious.

I'm wondering about how much fun it would be to service the packing glands on the backside of the pistons

piston lubrication is going to be another tricky area

if you want to have this conversation here you will need to present your arguments here [& in detail]

if you want to pimp your blog, you will probably not be very successful, members don't tend to want to go somewhere else for discussion & at some point the owners of CR4 will object to continued efforts to "redirect traffic"

you claim to have a working model, you should be studying that

detailed observations & measurements carefully logged to form a database

post up some real data & you will get a real discussion

It's nice to be dedicated to something. Even if it is something which defies the laws of physics, and logic.

Don't go off on us for expressing our considered opinion of your folly. We'd be just as vocal if we thought that this has merit. It doesn't! And all your wishful thinking won't make it so.

You obviously came here looking for cheerleaders, not validation.

So, please, oh please find some kindred spirits and "make it so".

But, don't blame this forum if it never does perform, per your pipe dreams.

"Resonance" in tuned systems is well known. I have cited two relevant applications.

The question in this case is; does it make more air than a more modern device?

Alternately; does its performance exceed say the hp tables in Machineries Handbook?

It is very possible, that in that era, it "made more air" than competitors, but far less than 'theoretical'.

(return to line 2)

The question then becomes; would/could it, improve/apply to, a modern device?

For instance a turbine, or a screw compressor?

It's not a case of "scary parts" or "out-smarty-pants" anyone.

It's just, it's all 'hot air' until you provide definitive comparative Data.

This is an interesting discussion. I have looked into this subject some. The historical record shows that Neal did present this machine as some sort of self-powered compressor. Whether it really performed as he expected or not, is water under the bridge to me. However, IF it ever did work, then the only possible explanation would be by acoustics. With a little digging, I see there is a lot of research on acoustic compressors from the early 1990's to present. If you are interested in discussing acoustic compressors, a good place to start would be to read the following four patents that all use different language to describe the same subject: 5020977, 5579399, 6079214, and 6700338. Now, go back to the early 1940's and look at the Tacoma,WA Narrows bridge. How much energy, or how many horsepower would be required to bring that bridge down? What was the source of that energy? And, what was the frequency content of the energy source, and of the energy that destroyed the bridge? Compare that to these four patents, and let's discuss air compression.

A more realistic discussion might be about resonance.

But, until somebody re-writes the laws of physics, you can't get there from here.

LYN, Could you be more specific in your comment? Could you frame your comment within the bounds of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge event? That would be most helpful and more on-topic. Thanks.

Tom,

Please don't instruct us in the proper etiquette to use here, after 3 posts.

The topic has nothing to do with a bridge.

The energy source was the wind, which was fairly constant rather than gusting. The natural frequency of the bridge itself (not the wind) led to alternate up/down vortex shedding, in a positive-feedback loop. See also "aerodynamic flutter" for further description. This topic, and the video, have been discussed before on CR4.

TORNADO, Thanks for the knowledgeable reply. I agree with your comment. Please find some time to read through the four above mentioned patents. The question that I have been wrestling with, is, could these acoustic resonators be so arranged to exhibit positive feedback, so that the gas mass flow would become self pumping, or close to self pumping? On the surface it seems possible. If the energy input to sustain the oscillation is not directly coupled to the gas mass flow, then it would be extremely interesting to determine what efficiencies might be possible. Excuse me in advance, if my comments are delayed by a day or two.

Tom, both you and the OP seem to think a "patent" means 'it works'. Sadly this is not the case.

Any thought that is 'novel' can be patented. It means nothing except no one else (in the patent archives) has recorded such a thought.

There are 1000's upon 1000's of non-functional 'inventions' patented world wide annually. This is why there are moves to 'clean up the system' - starting with 'over unity' tripe.

There can be nothing self-sustaining about this, no matter what purported "rationale'" is offered. Attaining and maintaining a resonance requires energy input, which cannot be exceeded by the output of any energy that may have been temporarily stored.

Conservation of energy is an overarching principle that does not depend on whatever gimmicks may be tried to deny it.

***

Are you by some chance the same Tom who has written at length on lutherman's "selffilling" blog? (An apt title for one who seems quite full of oneself.)

Excuse me for not being totally clear in my previous post. If you read the mentioned patents, you will see that the energy input, by the user, is used to maintain the oscillating wave. The gas mass flow or pumping action occurs when there is a pressure differential between the oscillating wave and the ambient pressure, which applies for both the inlet and the outlet. So, it appears that the force or energy which drives the actual gas mass flow, is the energy that is already contained in the ambient gaseous air. Remember that the gaseous atmosphere is already energized up to 3 hundred and whatever degrees K. The ambient gas energy is what moves the gas mass to the lower pressure area. The valve allows the pressure differential to build before it opens. Read the patents, and think about it for a while. I have other references from Masters, and PhD thesis from the internet that can be referenced, if there is any question about the validity of the standard acoustic compressor machine itself, which uses a piston action to maintain resonance.

What is the energy cost of "a piston action to maintain resonance"?

You can't just X that cost out of the equation.

Tom,

300°K= 27°C=81°F.

I have not bothered to read the patents, and I won't. They are irrelevant.

The Tacoma Narrows Bridge had significant energy input with each oscillation.

Do you have anything meaningful to add?

So?

Patent applications are notoriously unclear in their exposition, and oftentimes in their understanding of basic thermodynamics.

They can be like proposed angle trisection constructions, which are impossible. But it is like searching for a needle in a haystack to find the flaws. I don't have the time for such activity, unless it pays US$75/hour. However, you can prepay for as many hours as you wish....

Otherwise, we don't owe the time of day to this ridiculous pursuit.

Having been through the process with a well versed patent attorney I agree with you.

"Some one, well skilled in the art" may indeed understand the workings of the language of a patent.

Otherwise, the intent is not to explain how to manufacture a device, but rather how to protect the device from unwanted theft of the "invention".

Buy the way, you undervalue yourself.

Refuting thermodynamic crap counts as a labor of love, for which I am willing to charge less...

(Not that any of these clowns would ever pay me a dime, anyway.)

I'm sorry, but you are quite wrong about that. No one has any obligation whatsoever to wade through pages of verbiage in order to find out just where the flaw is that violates well known physical or mathematical principles.

Instead, it is the obligation of claim makers to prove their claims, in particular by addressing in advance the relevant problems that may arise.

As for the Neal patent, the air discharge pipe and the tank are both ridiculously small. The crankshaft design doesn't look any too good, either. Even though no dimensions are given, these are clear from inspection. Another problem is the thin and flat walls of the crankcase, which are expected to resist the sideways component of piston rod forces.

As I understand it, the 2^nd law of thermodynamics says energy can't be recycled to do the same task it just did because the act of doing that task caused it to become more dissipated, thus less available. Fresh energy has to be continuously entering the system. So if this were a closed system, it would be in violation, but it is a compressor. Compressors are continuously bringing in fresh energy in the form of atmosphere which is, by definition, since it is in a gaseous state, a carrier of ambient heat energy. If our atmosphere didn't contain fresh energy we wouldn't be alive and the constituent elements of our atmosphere would be in solid form, mixed with the rocks and soil of the earth, or wherever dead, frozen planets keep their frozen gasses.

I'll give the standing wave scenario that I developed with the help of a retired mechanical engineer who started me on acoustic power research in 1988 when I showed him Neal's patent. I was told of the invention by a friend of Neal and I spoke to Neal's son on the phone, and the machine actually worked. And much more recently a machinist built a working model of the device and found that it showed promising results at the resonant frequency of the compressor's discharge pipe. It's up to Tom to re-summarize his traveling wave theory here if he wants to, since people don't want to do any reading outside of this thread before submitting their response.

Compressing starts out conventionally or with the tank pre-charged. The compressor starts up, yes a 14-cylinder compressor is a beast, but this is a starting place and not the final version. The numerous cylinders is the pulsation driving system. The compressor is built to function as a conventional compressor so it will not be damaged when resonance is not happening. Since it's single-stage, it has to be able to reach the resonant frequency of the discharge pipe before tank pressure reaches 120 psi. Let's say it achieves resonance at 100 psi.

Pulsations in the compressor discharge pipe are caused by normal piston discharge and like any other compressor, there are going to be resonant zones at certain compressor rpm's. As someone suggested, this has some things in common with tuned exhaust systems, in that we want pulsations to generate resonance, so once the power band is found, the compressor is run at that frequency exclusively. At that frequency or an effective harmonic, the wavelength fits evenly into the pipe length so reflects back upstream with a similarly shaped wave such that the original pulsation-driven wave and its reflection add to each other, approximately doubling the amplitude or pressure.

The pressure antinodes are what cause air to enter the tank, first building up in the equalizer (between the two check valves) so that pressure builds up to about 200 psi. So far we have a conventionally-driven compressor up to about 100 psi when it reaches the power band.

The air from the compressor will have to enter the discharge pipe at the right portion of the standing wave it contains. I believe, based on the way Toribio Bellocq's acoustic water pump worked, that the air from the compressor enters the pipe at displacement antinodes. If it tried to enter at the pressure antinodes, it's true that at part of the wave's cycle, this is the place where the pressure is lowest, but it's only for a moment, and if you try to put the air in during the wrong part of the wave cycle, then it could be fighting a pressure that is greater than tank pressure, not less.

The displacement antinode or pressure node is equal to static pressure or about 100 psi, but I question this as the effective resistance to entering air, because static pressure is 100 psi when the air is still. With all this activity I believe that this point is where the flow is steadiest, and because of the flow, we can invoke the Bernoulli principle to ask whether or not that pressure is going to be effectively much less than static pressure because the air is moving.

Inside the tank, pulsations of air are exiting the tank for the air engine at a frequency that is 1/7 of the frequency of the pulsations coming from the compressor. So I propose that the engine defines the fundamental resonant frequency, and the tank and equalizer have to be tuned properly too, not just the compressor discharge line. The tailpipe extending into and just beyond the center of the tank from the second check valve is a resonator with one closed end and one open end. The sketch I'm posting is from the retired mechanical engineer who told me in 1988 that resonance is the key to this machine's function. It shows how pressure is augmented by wave reflections in an odd-quarter-wavelength resonator. Here is where the analogy is the tuning of a 2-cycle engine's exhaust system to optimize scavenging of the upstream gasses. So the outgoing pulse from tank to engine generates a high amplitude wave in the equalizer tailpipe that gives the equalizer contents a place to dump its contents when its contents reach a high enough pressure, and the Kadenacy effect pulls a lot more air out of the equalizer than would otherwise want to enter the tank on its own, because the equalizer's contents will blast suddenly into the equalizer tailpipe which is in constant communication with the inside of the tank.

So there are three acoustic effects in my standing wave theory. First, air from the compressor enters its discharge pipe against a drastically lowered resistance compared to the pressure it would be resisting if it were to enter the tank in a random way. Second, air at the end of the discharge pipe enters the equalizer in high pressure spurts, and the pressure in the equalizer builds up from trapping pressure waves that are able to cross the first check valve. Third, air leaving for the tank creates very uneven pressures inside the tank which are focused in the equalizer tailpipe, facilitating the scavenging of the equalizer contents into the tank.

The machinist who built and tested this device (2007 to 2010) did not put his equalizer in a tank for testing. He said that his compressor, which he built himself since it had 7 compressor cylinders for each engine cylinder, was not structurally strong enough to do much conventional compressing, but several times he was able to get the rpm's into the power band without bending of piston rods, and whenever this happened, the compressor stopped bucking and laboring, ran cool and smooth, while the air built up in the equalizer to a pressure greater than what the compressor was making. The equalizer became very hot to the touch. This indicates that compressing was being done in the pipe by acoustic power, not in the compressor. Once the right rpm is reached, the compressor is only an air mover.

That's my standing wave theory. Tom's traveling wave theory might be better but I haven't completely grasped it yet, so I can't tell. Constructive criticism would be appreciated. I don't need to be told that there are laws and generalities that prohibit the creation and re-use of energy, my emphasis is on the kind of math and theoretical perspectives that will either prove or disprove the specific processes mentioned in my description or Tom's.

ANY lowering of resistance to fresh air entering a pressure reserve is a savings in compressor cost. If the inventor and/or his son as well as the machinist were all lying about their results, well of course it's possible that they were, but since no one can prove it one way or the other, I'd appreciate hearing back from those who have read and understood that my thesis does not involve trying to rewrite any portion of science.

I glad to see your trying to understand Lutherman. But review the last sentence on post #46

You have to look at the big picture, not isolated bits and pieces. It's not something you can learn overnight or on some blog posts or patent searches.

"The equalizer became very hot to the touch. This indicates that compressing was being done in the pipe by acoustic power, not in the compressor"

Not necessarily: PV/T applies in the line to a tank. And factor in, the compressor is somewhat cooled by intake air.

It's conceivable the 'machine' has a 'sweet spot' at which say check valves work properly. What you might consider is recording pressure and rpm with a plain pipe, and with the 'device', then posting the numbers for each.

"PV/T applies in the line to a tank. And factor in, the compressor is somewhat cooled by intake air."
Here's what happened. He built a 7 cylinder compressor thinking it would never have to fight more than 15 psi, so as soon as it got any serious pressure built up, it started damaging itself. Finally after many attempts and repairs, he was able to get the rpm up to the expected power band several times, which is the resonant frequency of the compressor discharge pipe. This was by laboriously getting through the convulsions band or what he called bucking.
Upon reaching the expected sweet spot where resonance was expected in the discharge pipe, the pressure at the compressor went down, the compressor went from hot to cool, the compressor stopped bucking, the pressure went up in the equalizer, and the equalizer got very hot.
You're right, PV/T does apply in the line to a tank. As far as I know it applies everywhere. I don't know what your reason was for saying that.

"As far as I know it applies everywhere. I don't know what your reason was for saying that."

My reason for saying that centers on "mass flow", as do the factors raised in my comments.

I suppose I should have said 'PV/T applies to the line given mass flow', rather than assume participants on a forum such as this would automatically be imagining the transference of heat from compression and friction with volumetric flow.

Of course if there is no mass flow, then the compressor will 'buck' as the compressed air 'spring' forces each piston back down the bore. And of course, there will be a retention of heat from any and all friction.

I.e. when mass flow commences, the heat will be moved to the line and the compressor will be cooled somewhat by (cooler) intake air.

But, ok, having a dubious mechanic and Tom on the team, shouldn't distract you from applying some 'scientific method', before this 'pursuit' cleans out your bank account.

And part 1 of this is getting some numbers

First number, ^{_{as said earlier,}} is what is the total system power verses air delivery (at best performance) - compared to modern efficiencies?

"It's up to Tom to re-summarize his traveling wave theory here if he wants to, since people don't want to do any reading outside of this thread before submitting their response."

I don't believe that anybody here is interested in anything Tom has to say.

You should contact Choate, or whatever his name is here. You seem to be far enough out in the ozone to understand each other.

1. First, build a prototype that actually works correctly. Probably it would be best not to use the machinist who built the bucking and laboring one.

2. Then, test it against an ordinary compressor for efficiency.

3. Finally, if the test shows that the "new" design is more efficient, theorize all you want regarding the cause for that efficiency.

You seem to have it backwards: you have not presented any valid and meaningful test results, but are conjecturing all sorts of fantastic ideas for how this thing might work.

I'd appreciate hearing back from those who have read and understood that my thesis does not involve trying to rewrite any portion of science.

Happy to oblige: I understand fully that you are not trying to rewrite any portion of science. I am completely unconvinced that you even understand the science involved, let alone possess the ability to rewrite it. If (for some reason, such as to obtain investors before the concept is proven wrong) you want to advance this concept on a purely theoretical basis (rather than on experimental evidence) then your description would need to include the calculations for the resonant frequencies of the pipes involved, the pulse frequencies, the shape of the sound waves involved, etc.

Based upon the patent drawings and claims, there is no reason to think that the air in the pipes involved will resonate in a beneficial way. (In fact, a quick look suggests that resonances would tend to be damped by the interaction of the multiple cylinders, the small pipes, and the accumulator.) Your task, then, is to clearly and precisely describe (using an animation if necessary) how this device is something other than the funky old compressor it appears to be.

I read Tom's drivel, to which you provided a link. It has convinced me that you are up to no good. It rambles on, without making a clear and concise explanation for how this old, overly complicated, inefficient compressor is anything other than just that. Build a real one, have it tested, and then come back. Otherwise, you are only highlighting the "free energy" scammy nature of your endeavor. The "energy in ambient air" has been used (as an explanation for how impossible devices work) by almost every free energy fraud who shows up here.

If your claim is that accoustics is doing the work, then your job is simple: You don't need a hideously complicated compressor like Neal's. All you need is something to generate the pulses, and just something to (as you claim) "move the air" (a low power blower, a fan, etc.) Many scammers claim that an idea must be scaled up to a size too large for an unfunded inventor to produce. There is no reason that this idea cannot be demoed on a very small scale, and without the silly complication of Neal's compressor (the double acting pistons, the sliding bearing piston supports, etc. etc.).

Scammers love complicated-looking drawings.

Start with a loudspeaker.

I hope this helps to shape your continued research. It's almost 2011, and you are working with 1934 technology (unsuccessful 1934 tech, at that). Don't feel a need to spend time here, replying -- you should spend your time trying to catch up.

These clowns are persistent. I went back and read some of the pitch again. It's double talk.

I agree with you. If it's such a dandy gadget, why don't they just make one. That Tom's a real piece-o-work, too.

of course, were there any merit igersol rand & quincy would be churning these baby's by the 1000's

uncontrolled resonance in mechanical systems isn't a good thing

were neal's compressor to work as producer of resonance, I sure don't want to be in the vicinity when the thing is hitting a 100+psi

I can think of cheaper ways to make a bomb

"...there is no reason to think that the air in the pipes involved will resonate in a beneficial way..."

I'm starting here. The device actually did work. Why? The most obvious difference between this and a conventional compressor is the large number of cylinders. The objections to this are obvious and I already said that this is a starting place. I hear you when you say you can make waves in a pipe with a loudspeaker, saving all the expense of the 28 cylinders. (That's 14 double-acting cylinders. Neal actually built half that, a double-acting 7 cylinder compressor.) Back to the loudspeaker. I read an article from an engineering journal 20 years ago in which an oil filled pipe was fitted with a loudspeaker at one end and a check valve at the other. Acoustic power caused a net flow of oil through the check valve because pressure peaks allowed pulses of oil to proceed down the line against resistance. The use of resonance to pump fluids is not controversial.

While I am not here to say that Neal's compressor was perfect, anymore than he thought it was, I am here to talk about why it worked, because it did. Why would a shoemaker in Arkansas in the middle of the great depression go to the trouble of building a 14 cylinder compressor? He didn't get it right the first time, he burned the midnight oil for a long time before he got it to work. The many cylinders are because that was the best way he could figure out, and/or the first thing he tried that worked well, to get the effect he wanted. Which is a very positive pulsation, as in positive displacement, pushed by a wall of steel, kind of unstoppable. That's why he used a piston compressor, not a fan or blower, and that's why he used the pistons to drive the wave instead of a harmonica. The model he took to Washington DC to secure a patent was scaled down, it fit in a suitcase. I'm saying he built his "funky" "old" "scammy???" compressor this way because that is what he finally did that made it work. And his wife probably said, patent it now and sell the patent or I will divorce you.

"...resonances would tend to be damped by the interaction of the multiple cylinders, the small pipes, and the accumulator."

What is your reason for saying that? I appreciate constructive criticism but I can't guess what you're thinking. To me, seeing the compressor cylinders evenly spaced around the crank cycle and the engine cylinder on the same crank, this is going to drive a wave that can't be stopped (don't take that too literally) if the pipes that cary the resulting pulsations are tuned properly. The tank also as well as the space between the check valves would have to be tuned right.

You haven't given any evidence at all that this device actually worked. No energy inputs have been quantified, nor volume x pressure out. Your "reports" are some of the most spectacularly incompetent that I have ever encountered.

You say you're finished with this thread but I'll still post a response for others to read.

I have no interest in perpetual motion, my focus is a cheaper way to compress air. The patent, I agree, is not the point, because the machine did make extra air, as his son told me in 1988 and as Neal told an Arkansas newspaper in 1936. The fact that the machine worked is the point.

I rarely read a patent, because they are not meant to prove or reveal anything and they put me to sleep. Neal's patent is short and sweet so I've read it a lot, but his "claim" to me that his machine worked came through his son who witnessed it, and his friend who promised to keep the idea alive and passed it on to me.

I have collected thousands of pages of research papers on acoustic power and read lots of it but am now studying more math so that I can read that sort of thing and understand what I'm reading.

Thanks for the details on your opinion about why having many cylinders is anti-productive. If you're right, then maybe there is no acoustic explanation for why the machine worked. I don't think you're right. Evenly spaced pulsations into properly tuned circuits will make resonance like nobody's business. My opinion. I have some knowledge of piano tuning and from my experience, sounds is damn hard to git rid of.

My personal opinion is that there was an underground knowledge of this kind of thing at that time (1920s, 1930s) and it's possible that Neal was trying to patent a way of taking advantage of it, not patenting the equalizer or whatever performed the anomalous function, because all the good old boys back then knew about it and he knew it wasn't his idea. Conjecture that is.

Nothing has changed since Post 1 to this ridiculous thread.

Neither you nor your sidekick has presented even one piece of quantifiable data (such as hp of initial driver), or a straightforward description. Your performance here has been horrifyingly incompetent. Just words, words, words--useless words.

I see that you are voting as off-topic some comments that are are perfectly on-topic for this thread. This makes you one of the most grotesquely incompetent and dishonest individuals ever to appear here. I hope that you have invested heavily in this wild goose chase.

"The true measure of your knowledge and technical ability, is a demonstrated ability to explain in basic language why a particular claim is false"

See post #31, second line

Another example would be not quantifying the hp available in a 40 mph wind acting on long solid balustrades, in order to excite resonance in an already aerodynamically unstable structure.

But, hey, that was 1940 and;

"In many undergraduate physics texts the event is presented as an example of elementary forced resonance with the wind providing an external periodic frequency that matched the natural structural frequency (even though the real cause of the bridge's failure was aeroelastic flutter)"

link

As you see, to argue this sort of thing, you must first understand the "forest", not be tunnel vision on a "tree".

That would be similar to Vortex shedding, is it not?

Not really, though a trailing vortex can instigate flutter in a long thin wing/blade/thing, lacking torsional rigidity.

In basic principle, think of it as more like uncontrolled varying angle of attack

link

got it,

torsional vibration as opposed to transversal or longitudinal.

to start, patents or a patent search is not a good place to start. A good place to start is basic physics. Primarily the second law of thermodynamics

I see we're having the usual battle of wits with an unarmed overunityman

True genuis.

Quotung Tom, "Remember that the gaseous atmosphere is already energized up to 3 hundred and whatever degrees K. The ambient gas energy is what moves the gas mass to the lower pressure area."

300°K is 81°F. So much for the "genuis" Tomstudy.

"Remember that the gaseous atmosphere is already energized up to 3 hundred and whatever degrees K. The ambient gas energy is what moves the gas mass to the lower pressure area."

is that the common fart? should we call a HAZMAT team?

Neal's compressor has a continuous supply of energy entering it. So do most air compressors, it's just that we believe science is finished with the air compressor. This is something that needs to be re-thought-out because certain facts were removed from the textbooks in the 1930s

What are these "facts" you claim have been removed?

just because you can do a thing doesn't make it a good idea

once again, where's the data?

&@%!*

"What are these "facts" you claim have been removed?"

I should have said these facts have been misplaced somewhere, and are now long forgotten, because after 1930 this information was left out of textbooks. I already answered your question, here it is again:

Quoting myself: "All compressor work makes heat and is lost to the environment."

Then the logical proof of that, though the math to prove the above statement is also available if needed (from compressed air textbooks) is what I said next: "Isothermal compression removes all heat instantaneously. Adiabatic compression saves all heat till the air leaves the compressor and then all the heat will usually dissipate before the air is used." All heat lost means all work lost, because all compressor work becomes heat.

Then I mentioned the implications: "Compressed air is a form of solar energy."

Assuming most ambient heat is created by the sun. The only usable energy in a tank of compressed air after all compression heat is lost is the heat that can be extracted from it by an air motor while it expands toward atmospheric pressure. That heat was already in the air before it entered the compressor.

"I'm saying it has to be applied correctly or it is just naysaying."

You have to realize that whether or not it's apply correctly means nothing and does not change a thing. The 2nd law of thermo dynamics does not change no matter how its applied. And the 2nd law does apply here because you are transfering units of energy.

You say,"Trying to cancel everything with generalizations that don't fit the application is not useful."

I Say, "Trying to explain everything with generalizations that don't fit the application is not useful."

This fairy tale has become taxing, and has no value.

I recall an article in one of the "Popular" series of magazines from the late '90's.

It described a compressor using acoustic resonance. It was quite loud, the sound didn't exit the chamber, but compressed the gas.

They were developing these for spacecraft cooling systems, among other things.

I was working in active noise and vibration cancellation at the time and knew a VP from JBL/Harman Kardon who was developing such a system.

But, it didn't make more energy than it consumed.

"But, it didn't make more energy than it consumed."

No one is trying to make energy here, we are trying to use resonance as a tool to do something. The acoustic refrigeration has been known for a long time, that's a compressor replaced by acoustic power. The inventor of the one that got so much publicity in the field was Tim Lucas and the company name was Macrosonix. He has another company now and they're still doing that sort of thing.

Lucas' resonator got around the tendency for resonance to wreck things by oscillating the whole resonator instead of having the resonator anchored and having the resonance try to move it.

My theory has Neal using a mechanical compressor to keep the air moving. Neal is not using resonance to move the air into the system. The tank is already pressurized before the external energy supply is shut off, then the energy of the ambient heat continuously entering the tank becomes the primary source of energy.

The resonance is created by the compressor discharge pulses and passively by tuned pipe lengths. When you have waterhammer in your pipes, all you have to do is move the water (flush the toilet) and the tuned pipe lengths generate resonance. If you get tired of listening to the pipes vibrate in the walls, you get off your butt and go crack a faucet somewhere to release energy from the system or detune the resonance. It can go on quite a while because (according to a technical article I read once) resonance in piping is a relatively non-dissipative process. But no one is "making energy" as it is impossible.

As I've said before, b*llsh*t has to be distilled twice to make it this pure.

I note the OP continues to avoid my posts, or any other members, that speak of data and scientific method - but hey, it's his bank account.

Here are five research reports that are not patents, and also a report from the AirForce regarding acoustic compressors for clean air in a paint facility. I included the last one for those out there that do not believe that an acoustic compressor is real. If you paste this text into Google, it will bring up the .pdf files. There has been a lot of research in this area over the last decade. Most lab reports use a sinusoidal driven piston, since that will produce a force which can be mathematically modelled in a linear fashion. If you dig a little, you can find references to the overdriven nonlinear situation, which is where the current research seems to be headed.

Experiments of high-amplitude and shock-free oscillations of air
column in a tube with array of Helmholtz resonators

Measurements of macrosonic standing waves in oscillating
closed cavities

Annihilation of shocks in forced oscillations of an air column
in a closed tube

Nonlinear standing waves in a resonator with feedback control

Analysis of the flow structure inside the valveless standing wave pump

DEVELOPMENT OF A MORE RELIABLE AIR COMPRESSOR FOR
CORROSION PREVENTION AND CONTROL OPERATIONS

You present not a single shred of evidence that anything you say has credibility.

You want us to read old patents and take the word of "engineer Tom" that this contraption makes air flow magically into a tank.

Give us all a break, and go back the the pizza shop and sling some pizza dough, instead of slinging this unfounded sh&t.

Cheers.

"What is probably not often realized by the practical man is the fact that the greatest losses in power economy of compressed air are due directly to these evidences of heat and cold. However, what would probably prove the crowning surprise to this practical man would be the statement that, of all the energy in the coal burned to drive the compressor, not one foot-pound of this energy reaches his air-operated machine through the compressed air, but that what really drives this machine is the expansion of the atmosphere itself and that the energy required to expand this atmosphere comes from the heat in the atmosphere. The truth of the matter is that all the work done upon the air in compressing it is transformed into heat…"

The Energy of Compressed Air (excerpt) By Snowden B. Redfield Compressed Air Magazine September 1910 Page 5775

The writer quoted above was a well-known compressor engineer and inventor associated with Ingersoll-Rand in the early days. There is no shortage of statements like this one in older sources. Why is this fact no longer mentioned in technical publications? No guessing, please present evidence.

Lutherman, it's an excerpt and possible an incomplete one. But do you know what that excerpt just said?

It says that the inefficiency of compressed air that a few knowledgable people are always talking about is due to heating when you compress it and cooling when you expand it. That means while the compressor is reducing the air's volume, the instantaneous production of heat is trying to increase its volume, so the hotter it gets, the more energy it takes to compress it. Then when you try to use it in an air engine, it tries to expand and push a piston, but at the same time it gets cold due to reduction of its volume and shrinks when it is trying to expand because of the dropping temperature.

It goes on to say that few people are aware that none of the compressor's work is directly invested in the compressed air. That's because all of a compressor's work input becomes heat. The better the compressor, the more of this heat is wasted, and any heat left in the air after being delivered to the tank will dissipate through the tank walls and pipe walls before the air is used.

He continues by explaining that what really pushes the pistons in an air engine is the expansion of the compressed air that is due to the fact that the atmosphere contained heat before it was compressed, and the compressor was helpless to waste this heat also, so there is still a little usable energy in the tank even after all the compressor's heat has been rejected to the surroundings.

"It says that the inefficiency of compressed air that a few knowledgable people are always talking about is due to heating when you compress it and cooling when you expand it."

In physical sciences there are laws. The one you are touching off of is called Boyle's law.

Are you familiar with this?

Don't you mean Charles' Law? I could be misinterpreting your reason for asking since you didn't say what you were trying to get across, but Boyle's Law only deals with constant temperature changes of pressure and volume.

Charles' Law is based on the physical phenomenon of absolute zero. It quantifies the range of operations of air heating and cooling during compression and expansion. At one extreme you have the ideal of isothermal conditions where there is no temperature change. You can use Boyle's law for that. Or PV¹. At the other end of the spectrum, the adiabatic condition which is closer to how ordinary compressors work, with all heat kept in the air until it leaves the compressor. For that you use PV^1.4. All compressors work somewhere in that range, between PV¹ and PV^1.4. I'm talking about combining Boyle's and Charles', resulting in the combined gas law which says that with a given mass of air, PV/T is constant (Boyle) when all heat is removed instantly (the T isn't needed). Or if all heat stays in, then the heat builds up such that PV^1.4 is constant. Or you can say P₁V₁/T₁ = P₂V₂/T₂ = P₃V₃/T₃ etc, but the exponent takes care of the temperature changes when you just say that PV^1.4 or PV^1.2 or whatever is constant through changes of condition with a given mass of air.

So if you double the volume, the pressure goes down half (Boyle's law, isothermal expansion). If you compress the air to a fifth of its original volume, Boyle's law puts its pressure at 5 times the initial pressure. Adiabatically, if you reduce the volume to a third of the initial volume, because the exponent on V is about 1.4 instead of 1, the pressure ends up being considerably less than triple the initial pressure. This is how the charts are calculated that show how much power is needed to compress air isothermally and adiabatically to different pressures. With the addition of the delivery work at constant pressure and the negative work of intake, since atmospheric intake is self-powered to the extent that, except for losses, the work the compressor tries to do creating a suction on the intake stroke is cancelled by the pressure of the atmosphere causing the intake air to chase the receding piston.

About those compression power charts, the fact that all compression heat is lost is built into the charts. Isothermal is obvious, it is by definition a process of total heat loss. Adiabatic charts refer to how much power is needed to compress a certain amount of air, then despite the fact that the calculation is done about a process that conserves all heat, the power requirements listed on the chart refer to how much air is going to be left in the tank after all the heat has dissipated.

If you are going to ask what I know about waves and resonance, that's just the generalities that I present here in good faith with confidence that someone who is less cynical will eventually read this and respond with sincerity. I am studying trigonometry and calculus so that I can deal with the math of motion and change, and in the meantime I'm doing my best with the generalities about standing waves, antinodes, etc. I also believe that once I get a few things picked up from the math book, I will be able to use Tom's rambling notes as a guide from which I can develop an organized, succinct picture of what he's trying to say. He says Neal's compressor worked from traveling waves, he was inspired by my theory of standing waves, and I for one am working hard to get up to speed on the background knowledge so I can read and appreciate his big effort on the behalf of Neal's ghost.

Tom and I are two different people, we barely know each other, have never met, and our two theories are not in competition. We are seeking the truth, he in particular asked me to help him find some devil's advocates for his theory because he is concerned that two heads are better than one. Since I don't yet know anything about traveling waves, I posted this thread in search of anyone who does. We are both doing this as a hobby because we enjoy doing it, and we think it's interesting and relevant to the world's need for a new energy source.

Let me know if I made any math mistakes, I wrote this from memory but I think it's correct.

If you are going to ask what I know about waves and resonance, that's just the generalities that I present here in good faith with confidence that someone who is less cynical will eventually read this and respond with sincerity.

This is the reason that I am returning to basics. And I'm may not be the person doing this. But for you to grasp the concepts, an understanding of the fundamental have to be made.

"Don't you mean Charles' Law?"

Thats great, but you can't pick and choose, it's actually combined gas law, (Boyle's, Charles and Gay-Lussac's. Which would go even farther in combination with Avogadro's law to form the ideal gas law.

You see there is not just one sector of information or knowledge that is needed here. But a combination of physical attributes and characteristics. Acknowledging one while ignoring the other just does not work. Also you cannot learn these physical fundamentals through patent research or analysis.

As far as Tom is concerned, I hope Tom is listening.

And following through these fundamentals is seemingly distracting from the original post, but it's not. Because it brings us though to a discussion of the topic of fundamentals.

Talking and understanding the fundamentals can be rather lengthy. But I believe it is a requirement before we can address the basis of this thread.

Because I'm here to learn also.

why is it we are not encouraged to guess?

you have yet to provide the extraordinary proof, for your extraordinary claims

though you have provided some nearly entertaining conjecture...

proclamations of waste heat being the enemy, is relevant to your imaginary standing wave generator how?

waste heat is generally the result of friction & other inefficiencies

no revelation there

"proclamations of waste heat being the enemy, is relevant to your...standing wave generator how?"

I didn't say waste heat is the enemy. I said that all compression work becomes heat, thus all compression work is lost. This is relevant because it proves that using ambient heat to do work is the everyday way in which air is used. It is also relevant because most technical people these days don't know it, because it is not mentioned in textbooks anymore. It is relevant to Bob Neal's compressor because he invented a way to put this ambient energy into a constant pressure reserve without fighting it in against the existing pressure in the tank. Thus getting use of the ambient energy in atmosphere without the usual cost of compressing air conventionally. This is relevant to the accusation that is common in which generalizations about the 2nd law of thermodynamics are mis-applied to what I'm trying to do.

Henri Giffard, the first person to achieve controlled human flight, also invented the boiler injector, which uses steam from the boiler itself to put unpressurized water into the high pressure boiler with no moving parts. I mean this as an analogy of the potential of new discovery, but I expect someone will reply to inform me that air is not steam. I know the boiler injector won't work with air. My point is that long after the boiler injector was proven, intelligent technical people still called it a perpetual motion fraud.

"waste heat is generally the result of friction & other inefficiencies"

Compression heat is generated instantaneously due to the air's reduction of volume. I'm talking about a compressor wasting ALL of its work in the task of raising the air's temperature, because its ONLY task during the compression part of the stroke is to reduce the air's volume, and it is impossible to squeeze air molecules closer together without raising the air's temperature. Friction in compressors is handled by lubricants and other design features, it does not account for anywhere near the amount of waste heat as the thermodynamic heating explained by the gas laws.