Friction Steam Boiler

[1NRG24Seven]

Welcome Kentman to the thread and thank you for your input.

I must admit here that I was posting to the thread before I seen Lloyd Tanners video. I was looking at Ricks drawings and thought the friction rotor was running horizontal not vertical as in the video. Non the less both would work. After reconsideration I believe the vertical now to be the simplest way of reconstruction and will take the freedom here to input a new idea to bring the rotor into better communication with the boiler base without it having to be directly inside the boiler.

I am thinking of machining the top of the rotor as seen in Lloyd's video with small "races" like for a bearing...and also on the boiler base. Then uses small balls that the boiler base and rotor would be in contact with. Thus providing additional friction and heat transfer through the steel balls to the bottom of the plate. I am thinking of many concentric and ever smaller rings of races so many balls could be used. Would BB size balls work?...and if the BB's wore out they are cheap enough to replace. So i would not lubricate the BB's in communication between the boiler base and rotor top.

Any input on this Idea would be most accepted.

Thanx...24

[rickoff]

The horizontal roller drawings were drawn by Lloyd, and represent the design he is currently working with. My drawing was a vertical unit representation. You can find my drawing here: http://public.blu.livefilestore.com/...20sideview.bmp

Yes, the vertical design is simpler to replicate.

I wouldn't advise using steel balls between the rotor top and the steam chamber bottom. This will cause unwanted and considerable drag, requiring more hp to turn the rotor. It will also be a maintenance nightmare. The steel balls, the rotor, and the steam chamber's lower plate will all be wearing down, and that's not good.

Rick

[1NRG24Seven]

The horizontal roller drawings were drawn by Lloyd, and represent the design he is currently working with. My drawing was a vertical unit representation. You can find my drawing here: http://public.blu.livefilestore.com/...20sideview.bmp

Yes, the vertical design is simpler to replicate.

I wouldn't advise using steel balls between the rotor top and the steam chamber bottom. This will cause unwanted and considerable drag, requiring more hp to turn the rotor. It will also be a maintenance nightmare. The steel balls, the rotor, and the steam chamber's lower plate will all be wearing down, and that's not good.

Rick

I would argue that it was as you say "Unwanted" drag....after all I will remind you that this is a "FRICTION" boiler. I was hoping to maybe create friction in a way to possibly eliminate the wood, which to me is where "MOST ALL" the drag is to begin with.

I would also disagree that it would be a "maintenance nightmare" as you put it. If one is going to the trouble of machining a rounded grove or a race for the balls to run in then the balls will stay on top of the rotor to that the boiler could be lowered on top of them, bottom of boiler plat also machined with a series of races for the balls. All one would have to do is lift the boiler off of the assembly to get to the balls. Also one would most likely using this design would naturally use thicker rotor top plate and boiler bottom plate...could take years to wear it out. Besides it could be also designed for these two plates to be easily replaced. I understand that this will create drag and friction, and that seems to be the point of what I would want to do being its a friction boiler.

Good Day!!! ...24

[rickoff]

Hi 1NRG,

Your post went in twice, so I suggest deleting one of them. No need to bang your head against the wall and feel like I am opposing your viewpoint without just cause. Sorry, I didn't understand that you were suggesting using the steel balls instead of using Lloyd's wood friction technique, as you did not mention that in post #436. I thought you were suggesting using them in addition to the wood friction, which of course would require substantial additional rotor drive torque, as I was pointing out. Yes, the wood does create frictional drag, just as any type of friction would, but there are definitely benefits from using wood for the friction, and I think that those benefits should be explored before tossing them out in preference of some other method. Green hardwood, as used by Lloyd, will offer excellent frictional heat, but will not wear down the steel rotor. If you figure the applied force of the wood against the rotor (10 pound weight), and break that down to the force per square inch of wood surface exposed to the rotor, the force per square inch is very low. Also, the green wood sap helps to lubricate the friction contact point while also transfering heat from the wood to the rotor, and this is what keeps the wood from catching on fire. If steel balls are used for friction, there will be inevitable wear on all three friction surfaces involved - rotor top, steel balls, and steamer box bottom. You will certainly develop friction, and heat, but is it a better situation than using wood? If adequate pressure is maintained somehow, the steel balls will become red hot, and then blue rather quickly, flattening out as they rapidly wear. You will have pretty much the same situation as when a disc brake pad wears out and you then have metal to metal contact which quickly destroys the rotor while making very objectionable screeching sounds as well. Perhaps an even better illustration is what happens when a wheel bearing has no grease and seizes up. Please understand that I am all for experimenting with ideas, and that I don't mean to discourage you from pursuing ideas that you come up with. By all means go for it if you feel the idea has merit. There are a great many ways to construct a device that is capable of producing frictional heat. This particular thread is about the methods devised and implemented by Lloyd Tanner, which have already been proven to work quite well. That's why I have suggested several times herein that experimenters first build a small scale model of Lloyd's original vertical design to start with, and then test the potential for other modifications against their results using Lloyd's design. This way, modifications are relatively easy and affordable to make and test. Some changes may lead to improvements, while others may not. I may be wrong, but to my way of thinking it would be a mistake to throw out the simple but very functional beauty of Lloyd's proven design, in favor of another method, without first exploring what makes Lloyd's device so practical and noteworthy. Suggesting enhancements to Lloyd's methods is certainly keeping on topic here, but radical departures from Lloyd's methods would be better served in a separate thread which you should feel free to initiate if you choose to pursue such a build. Sorry if you weren't happy with my response, but you asked for input on your idea and I simply offered my honest opinion, which is based upon my own knowledge and experience. Opinions will vary between people. I accept and acknowledge that, and I in no way mean to belittle your expressed opinions. I wish you the best in life, and success in your endeavours.

Best regards,

Rick

[1NRG24Seven]

Thank You Rick,

After consideration of your thoughts I agree making his basic unit is the simplest way to a first build for testing and to familiarize oneself with the concept at hand, there is only one thing I will seek to change and that is the wood. As oak milled to 4" x 4" here is much too expensive for my taste at over 5 dollars a board foot, so will look to getting my hands on some more Ironwood as I would be surprised if I could ever wear it out. 2 lengths of 2" x 4" could be laminated together or used as is. Now as far as moisture content of the wood or if its green or not I don't think I will have those options, therefor may need to employ some other means or it maybe fine as is. Only way to know for sure is to try it.


Good Day!!!....24

[rickoff]

Is green hardwood firewood not available in your area? The pieces don't have to be perfectly shaped to 4x4's. Lloyd tried many different species of wood, and at varying dryness levels. He emphatically stated to me that green wood by far offered the best results. He ultimately chose oak because he had some readily available, but said that any green hardwood would be fine. I have a 4x6 piece of ironwood at my cottage that is amazingly heavy. I can't drive a nail into it, and attempting to saw into it just dulled my saw blade, so I'm wondering if that will prove a bit too much for the rotor. It will be interesting, though to see how your test with ironwood turns out, so do let us know. You might also consider building a 1/8 or 1/4 scale model for testing and development purposes. That way you could test a wide variety of woods very inexpensively, and altering any of the design parameters would also be much easier and inexpensive to facilitate. Then, when you have it exactly as you want it, go for the big one. Just a suggestion.

Rick

[1NRG24Seven]

Rick...we have a hardwood here in Eastern Oregon called Locust, I have heard some guys who cut firewood say they won't cut it as it destroys chains on their saws, makes them dull real quick and eventually eats the chain. That maybe an option as I do know of one guy who cuts nothing but locust as he gets all the trees he wants for free. I have heard its some tuff stuff and has a very long burn time. I was not aware that Lloyd used anything but 4 x 4 ...thanx for that info, as that was another of my objections. Logically unmilled wood would be a better choice.....24

[Golden Mean]

An idea

Namaste' Fellow FE Researchers!

Came across this thread for the first time today.
Perhaps this has been posted previously regarding this idea, but would it make sense to loop the steam coming off and run it through a turbine connected to the rotation shaft that is creating the friction to allow a decrease in the amount of input energy from the electric motor?
I know little about the efficiency of steam/turbine interactions, but it seems that once this is "up to pressure" that it would increase in efficiency so long as the "steam" loop is kept under pressure...

Can anyone comment on the energy exchange that occurs in steam turbines?
Does the steam lose a lot of energy when interacting with the turbine when it is up to speed? or does it simply create a back pressure that increases the temperature according to gas laws pV=nRT and hence puts pressure on the turbine to turn the rotor to create the friction to increase the temperature which increases the pressure... etc.

I don't know that you could ever "lose" the electric generator completely, but it seems like there's potential to minimize it once this puppy is up and running under high pressure. Anyone work with steam boilers and such to be able to comment on this?

Ahimsa,

[rickoff]

Came across this thread for the first time today. Perhaps this has been posted previously regarding this idea, but would it make sense to loop the steam coming off and run it through a turbine connected to the rotation shaft that is creating the friction to allow a decrease in the amount of input energy from the electric motor?
I know little about the efficiency of steam/turbine interactions, but it seems that once this is "up to pressure" that it would increase in efficiency so long as the "steam" loop is kept under pressure...

Hi Golden Mean,

Actually we have covered this subject rather extensively within the thread. Lloyd gave us his results data from a sustained pressure/temperature steam test, and we applied that to both a conventional steam engine design and a Tesla steam turbine design. The Tesla turbine won out, and that was expected. From the start, Lloyd's idea was to use a steam turbine with his device. To make the device non-dependent of the electric motor, he built on a propane heater that would heat the steam box to operating temperature, whereupon the steam engine could be started and used to drive the friction rotor. To locate the posts pertaining to this information, use the Search link feature at the top of this page, then click Advanced Search and use my name (rickoff) with either "steam engine," "Tesla turbine," or "steam" as the search word, and Renewable Energy as the specific forum site to search.

Thanks for your interest,

Rick

[Golden Mean]

Hi Golden Mean,

Actually we have covered this subject rather extensively within the thread. Lloyd gave us his results data from a sustained pressure/temperature steam test, and we applied that to both a conventional steam engine design and a Tesla steam turbine design. The Tesla turbine won out, and that was expected. From the start, Lloyd's idea was to use a steam turbine with his device. To make the device non-dependent of the electric motor, he built on a propane heater that would heat the steam box to operating temperature, whereupon the steam engine could be started and used to drive the friction rotor. To locate the posts pertaining to this information, use the Search link feature at the top of this page, then click Advanced Search and use my name (rickoff) with either "steam engine," "Tesla turbine," or "steam" as the search word, and Renewable Energy as the specific forum site to search.

Thanks for your interest,

Rick

Thank you Rick!

[CCRO3]

Here is an idea to help improve the output

After reading about this device to produce steam, I wonder if a absorption unit type device could be used with the steam generator. These absorption type chillers have been used since 1943 with great success and really work well. Please do a google search "Absorption chillers" to see how they operate.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absorption_refrigerator -
Absorption Chillers

I was thinking in this application that, similar to a absorption unit, that a cool salt solution to asorb the steam engine discharge could lower the pressure to a vacuum on the discharge side of the steam engine or turbine, then part of the salt solution would be pumped to the steam generator to be turned back into steam. Meaning that most of the friction is in the salt as the water is removed by the heat and turned into steam. The salt solution flow could be controlled to control the amount of salt build up as the water is removed and turned into steam. A cooling coil in the concentrated salt solution removes the remaining heat from the steam engine discharge and could be used for space heating.

Then the cycle starts over again.
The whole system operates in a vacuum. This would be a complete sealed system with a higher total output because of the greater pressure difference between the discharge pressure of the steam generator and the salt solution to the generator. The steam engine or turbine sees the total pressure difference between the steam generator output (Pressure) and the water vapor absorbing salt (Vacuum) solution. The steam pressures would be lower. A lower steam generator temperature also.

A controlled friction situation as the salt solution in a liquid form acts as a lubricant. The salt solution in a solid form acts as a friction material, or a higher friction material. Controlling the salt brine concentration in the steam generator controls the friction load on the steam engine or turbine and the steam production from the salt solution as the water in the salt solution turns to steam. It is a negative feed back control loop.

The steam generator uses a salt solution to generate steam, the steam engine or turbine operates on steam as before.

Plus it is a sealed system, most of the friction would be in the salt solution. May be Tatanium or some other hard materal could be used. The salt solution concentration to the steam generator could be controlled there by controlling the friction between the moving parts. The salt as a friction materal between the moving parts would never wear out.

No wood required.
It is just an idea.

[IndianaBoys]

Genius Inventor Makes His Own Electricity For Pennies

Just received the latest Lindsay's Technical Books Catalog
654 Summer 2010

I have attached a scan of the back cover with the title:
Genius Inventor Makes His Own Electricity For Pennies

Expects to offer complete plans and ready to assemble kits very soon.

excerpt:
We all know we can make our own electricity much more cheaply than the local power utility because, after all, they don't know what they're doing. And we do!

A well-known genius inventor has perfected a new extremely efficient boiler to feed steam to an easily assembled steam engine running an alternator. Burning wood, coal, leaves, or even your mother-in-law's underwear, this amazing new power plant can provide 120 volt 60 cycle power 24/7. Disconnect from the grid! Make all your friends think you are a genius!

Lindsay Publications, Inc.
Lindsay's Technical Books
Fax 815-935-5477

[phi1.62]

Original Ted Pritchard steam car engine plans on ebay

Last year I wrote a post regarding the Pritchard steam engine:

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...html#post72000

While browsing ebay yesterday I stumbled across an auction that is selling complete drawings and instructions for construction of this engine by a person who assisted in it's construction.

Full size steam car engine.Drawings & instructions. - eBay, Steam Powered, Powered Toys, Toys, Hobbies. (end time 19-Oct-10 15:27:11 AEDST)

Although I would bid on the plans myself Mechanical Engineering is not my area of expertise and I rather not add another $350 to my credit card. Also I have a final year university project that I need to build next year and need to save the money for that. So I thought I'd alert you all as I rather see someone from this forum with mechanical expertise who would be willing to try constructing this forgotten piece of efficient energy technology as opposed to myself where it'd be years before I had the time, knowledge and funds to try constructing it myself if I ever did decide to build it.

In saying this I plan on bidding on the item at the last minute if no one bids on it due to it's historical value and in case I do come across someone with the skills to build this engine.

[kentman21]

replication report

Hi Members of this thread. I have completed a replication of the vertical heater, sufficient to ascertain it's capabibility. I may be wrong but I have stopped work on this project as being a dead end, for the following reasons:-
I have found on first start up, the temp will rise to 370 deg C within about 10mins, after that it will slowly drop to 98 to 120 deg C and remaind at this temp no matter how long the machine is run.This,of course, is far too low a temp for a sustained say,10 HP output.The reason for this is simple, the contact area of the wood becomes charred, and the thin layer of carbon acts exactly as the carbon brushes in an electric motor, which, as everone knows will last for a very long time. If the carbon is scraped off the contact area, properties are restored for about the same time as mentioned above i.e. 10 mins.The wood used was hard maple, the wood at the time of construction was geen, but as the time of design/construction was protracted the wood dried out.This brings out another point. Any prudent person would lay in a small stock of the prepared wood, but by the time it would be required for use, it would be no longer be green. I have tried soaking the wood before use, to no avail.I have increased the pressure on the wood from 10 lbs to 20 lbs, again to no avail.
I hope the members of this forum may have a solution to this problem, but I feel this is the reason why, the inventer has been so busy on the horizontial version of the friction heater.

[rickoff]

The wood used was hard maple, the wood at the time of construction was green, but as the time of design/construction was protracted the wood dried out.This brings out another point. Any prudent person would lay in a small stock of the prepared wood, but by the time it would be required for use, it would no longer be green. I have tried soaking the wood before use, to no avail. I have increased the pressure on the wood from 10 lbs to 20 lbs, again to no avail.
I hope the members of this forum may have a solution to this problem, but I feel this is the reason why, the inventer has been so busy on the horizontal version of the friction heater.

Yes, the wood must be "green" (unseasoned) at time of use, and "green" hardwood has different properties than water soaked hardwood. You said you are using maple. If you boil down a gallon of water until there is a pint left, it will still be water, but if you boil down a gallon of maple tree sap, you will have a pint of maple syrup. In my opinion, it is the properties of the sap that are essential for making Lloyds friction steamer operate correctly. When wood dries, you not only lose the moisture content, but also the sap that was contained within the moisture. Also, the wood shrinks as it dries, and thus the porosity is deceased by the same percentage as the shrinkage. So even if you were to mix a pint of pure maple syrup with a gallon of water and soak your dried wood pieces adequately, they still wouldn't approach the sap content of the wood when it was green cut, although that's better than just soaking in water. In an earlier post, I talked about ways of preventing your cut wood stock from drying. My preferred method for your vertical build would be to immediately wrap each two pieces of prepared stock together in shrink wrap sufficiently as to allow no airing. By the way, you didn't mention the scale of your build or dimensions of your wood stock. As a general rule, unwrapped wood of 2 inch thickness takes about 2 and 1/2 times as long as 1 inch thick wood to air dry, and likewise 4 inch thickness wood will take about 5 times as long as 1 inch wood to naturally air dry. When wrapped well enough to be esentially airtight, there should be very little loss of sap, if any. Of course you wouldn't want to put away a large amount of wood stock in this manner, because the unused pieces would likely tend to rot after an extended period of time. If I remember correctly, though, Lloyd said that two pieces of 4 x 4 stock normally lasts 10 to 14 days, so you really wouldn't need to put away very much wood in advance. And of course the optimal arrangement would be to use freshly cut and prepared stock at each loading of the device. If you know someone who cuts and splits firewood for a living, just ask them to prepare and hold out two pieces of your required dimensions every two weeks, or to set aside a log section of say 8 inch diameter by 30 inch length that you can then take home and trim to make two 4x4x15 inch pieces of fresh green cut hardwood.

Thanks for your post. Please submit some photos and dimensions of your build, as I'm sure that everyone would be quite interested to see this.

Best 2 U,

Rick