Liquid Piston Turbine Engine

http://www.openforum.com.au/blogs/das-energy

Looks like you get around, ay mate!

http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=19530

http://www.altestore.com/forums/Peter-Mckinlay-posts/index.php?action=show_posts;a=1592150852

I liked the part about "Arvel Wright"! And what about Wilber?

This actually sounds intriguing.

http://www.teslasecret.net/hyperlinkmagic/1

I"m sold..... now all I need is some "spare" time.....

I don't have the technical expertise to know if the little demo is feasible. I got it as an email ad through News Max magazine. Sounds interesting.......maybe. 60 day money back guarantee. Although, this thread has reaffirmed my belief, that if it sounds too good to be true.......................................

There is no such word as "centrifical"; and even if there were, its efficiency would be greater than that of this cockamamie turbine idea.

It's good that chalifoux charlie's flow is on the order of 2 cfs; 2 liters/s would be nowhere near enough.

I think that's it for me on this thread.

After looking at the Liquid Piston Turbine Engine and associated DaS Valve I think I can sum up my feelings in one sentence without all the childish name calling and behaviour many of the other CR4 posters have unfortunately resorted to (possibly due to frustration or their belief that you are yet another deluded pseudoscience inventor trying to save the world with unworkable designs).......

Based on what I have seen I don't see how your design(s) could provide any useful work in the real world, let alone be a viable alternative to existing engine designs.

Principles, theory, ideas and models are all well and good but the moment you try and use (say) the DaS Valve in a real world application (like say exerting a force on a real piston of some weight like a real engine or electric motor powering a generator feeding a load, etc) I don't see it working how you think it will work. I personally don't see any of these designs being revolutionary (have a look on the Patent websites). As for saving the planet with these concepts, enough said.

Perhaps it would be a good idea to continue with development and testing of your idea. The DaS Valve could potentially be useful as something else, but I seriously doubt you are going to be able to convince actual Engineers and Scientists on CR4 of your engine claims without much, much more proof.

_{Jack - Power R&D Engineer.}

Oh come on now! Was it the leather flap and tennis ball that floats on water being used to plug a squash ball sized hole all the while be subjected to diesel like levels of compression and combustion temps that gave you doubts in post 90?

Or the undefinable turbine of incredible efficiency that is only referenced to as " Copied the Mitchel turbine contruction of cut and weld pipe." in post 45 ?

I hope that it wasn't that this whole ting is built out of "water Pipe" that is undefined material and specs "water pipe" also in post 45?

I give some slack to "backyard inventors" and "backyard engineering", especially if they are willing to build their ideas to prove (or generally disprove) their designs and accepted theoretical principles. This is afterall how we all learn (or if we are lucky prove a point).

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/heatengcon.html#c1

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html

The links above will take you to a pages that cover Heat Engines and Heat & Thermodynamics in great detail. Some of the terms and concepts under Heat & Thermodynamics that pertain to your device, and that will give you a much better understanding the physics behind it, are: the Zeroth, First, & Second Laws of Thermodynamics, Ideal Gas Law, Energy, Heat, Work, Entropy, Thermal Expansion, Adiabatic, and Isothermal. The discussion of The Diesel Engine under the first link shows how theoretical maximum thermal efficiency is based entirely on the compression and expansion ratios of the cylinder. Keep in mind that actual thermal efficiency is ALWAYS less than the theoretical maximum.

I have no doubt your device could be made to function. The real questions are how much usable work it can produce, now fast it can produce it (power), and the efficiency at which it will produce that work. In other words, is it practical.

The usable work will be determined by the amount of fuel burned and the overall system efficiency. Overall efficiency is equal to usuable work produced divided by energy input (consumed). Even if the turbine is 80% effiecient, a lot of the energy that goes into the system will be used to do work other than turning the turbine. Work must be done to move the water through the various passages.

Basically, Work out = Energy in - heat losses - friction losses - pumping losses - other losses.

Unless the conbustion gases are allowed to expand completely, there will be some heat lost in the exhaust because temperature and pressure will still be elevated at time of exhaust. There is heat lost through the pipe walls and to the water itself.

I wonder how fast your device could be made to complete one cycle. In a typical gasoline or diesel engine running at 1500 RPM, each piston moves up and down 25 times EACH SECOND, so each cylinder completes 12.5 cylces each second. Many diesel engines can run up to 4000 rpm or more, though heavy duty diesels still turn much slower (2400 rpm or less). Most gasoline engines will turn up to 6000 RPM, and many motorcycle engines can turn up to 12,000 rpm (each piston moves up and down 200 times each second completing 100 cycles per second). Due to the low pressures that would exist to move the water back into the "pipes", it could take several seconds to move the water out and in to complete just one cycle.

I have serious doubts about the combustion process. First, fuel in the liquid state does not burn well due to the minimal surface area exposed to the oxygen. The fuel must be atomized or in the vapor state to allow the fuel and oxygen molecules to come in contact and combust quickly. A layer of fuel on top of a layer of water will not burn very fast. Secondly, in diesel engines, the fuel does not ignite due to the pressure, it ignites due to temperature. Compressing the air raises the temperature (see Ideal Gas Law) to the point where the fuel ignites. Bubbling compressed air through the water column will not raise the temperature in the combustion "space".

These are just some of the issues that the more educated (not necessarily smarter, just more educated) readers recognize when considering your proposal. The readers offer their opinions freely and honestly, and inaccurate comments are quickly pointed out and corrected by others. Arrogance on the part of those who are obviously and grossly less knowledgable is not well tolerated, as you have witnessed.

The Wright brothers took the time to learn all they could about flight from the best science available at the time. It would be time well spent for you to do the same with regards to Thermodynamics and Fluid Mechanics. The knowledge gained may allow you to overcome the shortcomings of your ideas.

Consider this idea and figure out why it won't work: Take the output from one generator to run a set of electric motors that run other generators.

Hello Mctech,

Thank you for your sound advice.

If I may touch on a little. I rely on California University that the turbine itself is 80% efficient however for the rest? The flap valves and water friction I have hope wont strip away too much, but being so novel.

Fully agree on energy losses just to move the water. I have been doing calculous by taking the pressure at turbine intake. Again I rely upon California University 1 litre flow per second at 9 bar pressure produces 720 watts.

Noted heat loss through pipe walls, and heat taken up by water also causes loss however the hot water is needed to assist in the vapourisation of the fuel.

Speed of refill is not fast on model shown unless a Turbo Charger is fitted. However on later model a thread ectched into extended turbine shaft does the air compression and the force of exhaust gas is used to speed refill.

Atomisation of fuel is done by the heat of the hot water, so the fuel leaving the water is in a gas state of 100*C.

Diesel cylinder heat is created by the "pressure" of the air at end of piston stroke, this pressure being obtained by compression. As you note its the pressure of the air that creates the heat. I trust you have noted the air going into the short pipe is highly compressed.

I have read so much about why it wont work but none of the answers have yet stopped it working. Self experiment place fuel and water in a sealed pipe then add pressurised air.

If this thing works, as you keep on saying, why in the world are you here.......and all over the rest of the internet, for that matter, trying to convince people?

If any one of us had a working unit like you describe, a huge energy saver, we sure as hell wouldn't be here wasting time trying to convince a bunch of engineers that it worked...........We'd be selling it!!!!! At least I would.

When you say California University, I assume you're talking about the University of California, which campus? California University doesn't exist.

Never mind, this is an exercise in futility.

If you have been doing some "calculous," why don't you show your computations? Water at 100°C isn't going to do much toward atomizing the fuel. Your whole account is incoherent, and completely lacking in useful data.

Even the most half-baked experimenter would put a few gauges and thermometers on the device under test, and then report some tangible results. You have done nothing of the kind. This is intellectual fraud, although by charging nothing you might protect yourself from accusations of commercial fraud.

I would recommend that you sell no stock in such ventures, as that might get you into trouble later.

I rely on California University that the turbine itself is 80% efficient

Are you using this to help validate you creation.....theory. There is nothing wrong citing other sources that you actually use in your work, but show where and how it is being used. Don't just drop names and institutions.

As pointed out by kramarat, there is no "CALIFORNIA UNIVERSITY".

Oh, except the one in Pennsylvania.

That must be the one he's referring to. I didn't bother googling.

He's getting the same responses on the other forums as he's getting here. I think at some point he's had a break from reality. Professional help is needed, just not from engineers or scientists.

point is, as an example;

I'm using a "Quaker Oats" container as a 1 stage rocket booster, using information from JPL for a rocket I'm building to be the first man on the moon.

This statement is totally useless.

There is no collaboration, actual information being used is really not stated, not where or how it is being used. JPL does not know I am using their expertise to reinforce my "Quaker 1 Project" (nor does General Mills for that matter).

I think I'll state a new thread. but I will asked for donations for "Quacker 1"...I mean "Quaker 1"

Take a 100 Attaboy's out of petty cash :D

Your response is further evidence of your lack of understanding of the physics and mechanics involved.

1) 1 l/sec a 9 bar = 720 watts. 80% turbine efficiency tells you the amount of energy input must be 900 watts. Power required to pump 1 l/sec of water (or any fluid) against an 9 bar exit pressure is 800 watts. (flow * pressure/1714, flow in gpm, pressure in psi). This is before any inefficiencies are taken into consideration.

2) A spinning shaft with an external helix (your thread etched onto the shaft) is not a compressor. It will not move any appreciable volume of air. Consider current turbochargers. The compressor uses vane to draws air in then throw it out radially. The shaft speed is very high, >10,000 rpm. If air could be compressed by a helix on a shaft, the complex turbochargers and superchargers in use today would have never been developed.

3) Water at 100 deg C would flash to steam as soon as pressure dropped below 1 bar.

4) Temperature in diesel engine cylinder rises because the AIR IS BEING COMPRESSED IN THE CYLINDER. If the compressed air is not at the temperature required for ignition when it enters the pipe, what is going to make that temperature rise as the air moves up the pipe? In your device, in order for the compressed air to be hot enough to ignite the fuel, it would have to be at a higher temperature when it enters the pipe because it would lose cool rapidly as it passes through the water.

5) Does DAS Energy Systems, Inc. know that your are using their trademarked name as your screen name in discussion boards regarding innovative energy conversion devices?

You thanked me for my sound advice, but did you take that advice? There is no way, in the time since my original reply, that you could have reviewed and absorbed even a small protion of the information in the links I provided. You post to this discussion board seeking advise, but you don't even try to comprehend the responses to get.

Also, you didn't answer the question about the generator/motor/generator arrangement?

Another way we can discern that this whole thread is BS is that "turbine" and "engine" are mutually contradictory terms. Only a scientifically illiterate person would combine them. Alas, this is exactly what has been done.

I got to reading DAS's posts in order and really what he reminds me of is a someone who is half baked on pot.

If you have ever had an opportunity to have an attempted intelligent conversation with someone who is lit up beyond compare you get the same overall responses to any technical question you ask them.

When they are fried everything they say is intellectually superior and well understood, but only in their mind. On the outside its mostly incoherent comments, vague attempts at explaining ideas and for the most part a one sided conversation. Sure they put together stuff that sound like sentences and answerers but its usually scrambled nonsense.

My guess is DAS is some stoner who does not have or at least no longer has his sons, possibly lost in a messy divorce over his Ehm.. hobbys, and is presently an self loathing unemployed/unemployable mess of human being who's only remaining retreat is getting lit and indulging his fantasy life of being an engineer or inventor.

Dude, you're harshing his mellow

I've also fallen into the trap of trying to logically discuss engineering fundamentals with an inventor whose intellect has obviously surpassed all current and past genius. The effort is futile since there is no common ground for communication and no mutual desire to exchange real knowledge. The total volume of responses, regardless of content, only reinforces the superior knowledge position held by the OP. I personally find it very disappointing that the site moderators have let this over-unity/perpetual-motion-machine thread go past a half dozen comments while other similarly absurd threads are thankfully euthanized after only a couple of comments.

At least this one isn't claimed to run off solid co2 at 10,000 bar! Milo

Oops spoke too soon.

Milo

It wont work

Could you let us know where you got this diagram from so we can try and copy it so we can read it, ta

Ive tried to enhance the picture but its proved impossible as the original is too blurred

Hello peter7lyg.

Sorry but much of the files wont paste being MIME'

However Co2 pressure phase pressure chart is what to search for on the internet.

Wikipedia has some charts and there are various others by Professors and Gas Industry.

Also Vapour Pressure Data on Web gives a good account of other types of gas that may be used in place of Co2.

Hope what has pasted is of help.

Cheers

Peter

Hello peter7lyg,

Also possible of help. Right click copy of image in posting. Go to Paint riight click paste. Drag to expand.

OK. How much £ does it cost and what comes out of it?