Re: H2 burner

On Jun 15, 7:20 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Robert Adsett wrote:
In article <ruydnUMWZuX1_8nVnZ2dnUVZ_q7in...@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Spaceman
says...
Robert Adsett wrote:
In article <6a-dnQmZIIJG28nVnZ2dnUVZ_h3in...@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Spaceman
says...
Heat engine?
Why?

It transforms heat from your fuel to mechanical energy.  That's a
definition of a heat engine.

Okee dokee,
no prob then,
Heat Engine it is.
but that still does not stop it from being better than
a traditional ICE.

It places a strict upper limit on the efficiency.  Now that you
realise you are dealing with a heat engine read up on elementary
thermodynamics and the Carnot cycle.  You will find what that limit
is and why it is what it is.

While doing a little browsing I found that this engine has existed
since the 1930's

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-piston_engine

Apparently fairly efficient as a compressor.

I have read all that,
and if you read more it is also for consideration in
hybrids of today.

It is a very possible engine and the super stroke
makes a big difference compared to limited stroke
engines.
the problem is, not many drawings are posted on the net
so I posted mine.
Sadly I got all sorts of *** (from people that did not even look
at the design at all and just babbled along without
thinking about each and every part
so that did not matter especially since
I know every concept of the thing works not only in theory,
but in real world applications today,
and in some cases.. carnot efficiency might even be wrong.
so..
We will see, but for now
Carnot is not a problem except maybe to itself.
:)

--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Carnot is not a problem to itself - its merely a description of how
things are. If you are counting on violating Carnot efficiency, then
you are counting on things operating for your engine differently than
the real world operates. This is tantamount to saying your engine
doesn't work. When one learns that you haven't built the engine,
they don't need to look at drawings.

Look, if I said I can blow on my thumb and levitate 50 feet in the air
- you would rightly ask - have I done it. I said no, but I have
detailed descriptions of how its done and how it works. You wouldn't
have to see those descriptions to say - hey - you can't do it.
Someone extremely open minded would say - do it for me - and I will
believe. Others will write you off as a crank. See?

Same here.

When I carefully explain to you how heat engines work, and you reply
that your engine is not a heat engine - when in fact it is - I really
don't have to look at your drawings to know you are clueless about
heat engines. When you say a stream turns a fan multiple times per
stroke and that's why its more efficient I know you are clueless about
efficiencies and transmissions. I really don't have to look at your
drawings. When you say Carnot is a problem for itself, not your
engine - I really don't have to look at your drawings - to know you
are clueless about efficiency and all your claims about efficiency are
wrong.

A free piston engine is an efficient gas generator that is capable of
driving a fan. The fact that you cannot see that Carnot efficiency
applies to this engine as any other - says more about your ignorance
than anything else.

Please get a copy of Taylor and read it - doing the exercises - and
then rebuild an old lawn mower engine making it a gas generator along
the lines described in Taylor for a free piston engine - then, adapt a
turbocharger to operate as a fan. Its pretty simple. Then you will
see what we're talking about.
.

Quantcast