Friction Steam Boiler

[Mark]

Jetijs I am so jelous! Your builds are so awesome, do you have a machine shop and mill in you basement or what? Hurry up and get your motor and turbine built, I want to see the results.

[little_old_lady]

Rick,
As always, I greatly appreciate your input. I remember seeing your calculations showing that a 10HP green steam engine should be possible which is why I was very excited about this device. I need to build a boiler of one kind or another for my 3HP@150psi steam engine and really liked how simple Tanner's device is.

I apologize if I let nonubbins confuse me about what we are dealing with. I never meant to mislead anyone which is why I was careful to preface my response to nonubbins as "if those calculations are accurate".

You have clearly shown that nonubbins was misstating certain facts, particularly regarding HP requirements.

[Jetijs]

Thanks Mark
I do have access to a machine shop, but almost everything is made using my homemade cnc machine. This thing sure makes building stuff easy
Thanks,
Jetijs

[little_old_lady]

Every degree of pre-heating that we can capture is going to be of benefit, and brings the theoretical idea of a self-runner closer to reality. I don't imagine that anyone is going to want a self-runner just for the sake of having one. To perform useful work, you would have to sacrifice self-runner capability in order to use that energy potential for real benefit.
Best regards,
Rick

Rick,
Based upon this statement of yours it seems like even you recognize that potential surplus mechanical energy from a "self-runner" would be relatively small. Has anything changed since you posted that? You used the example of a 10HP green steam engine, but in that same example didn't the device require 9HP? In your recent post you mention that HP requirements probably do not scale linerally with the number of blocks/pressure and that actual HP usage (vs rated HP) was probably less. I think this is the most important number to quantify. Too bad we cannot get a power meter on his electric motor!

I agree that 20lb/wood per hour is horribly inefficient compared with the amount of wood need by Tanner's device. I mentioned it to show how much better his device is, but Tanner's device also requires motor input in addition to wood input which seems to negate a large percentage of the potential mechanical energy generated by steam. Assuming for every 10 HP of green steam engine you power get 1HP of surplus mechanical energy, then you would be required to put 10x the wood through the Tanner device to achieve 10HP of surplus mechanical power. At this point the Tanner device would have to be much bigger and your steam engine/tesla turbines(s) would need to be 100HP. Perhaps it wouldn't be that bad if economies of scale could be used and the non-linear relationship between HP and wood usage/heat generation held up. Effectively the 36x advantage you mention turns into a potential 3x advantage (at much larger scale) if your goal is to generate surplus mechanical energy.

The nice thing about traditional boilers is that they are "self running"; therefore, the heat lost up the chimney could be thought of as the heat required to maintain the "self runner".

Please do not misunderstand what I am saying, I think this device is WONDERFUL at producing heat cheaply and efficiently! The problem seems to be the inefficiencies of steam generation and inherent loses in the heat of vaporization and in conversion to mechanical energy. So may I propose an alternate idea, a stirling engine? These engines are 20% efficient (higher with heat recovery) and we would instantly save the heat of vaporization which at 10 gal/hr is 80,900 BTU/hr which at 20% efficiency is 6HP.

[little_old_lady]

I guess stirling engines are very hard for amateurs to reproduce and very costly to have professionally made. It still may be the ultimate solution for this device.

[rickoff]

About horsepower

Hi everyone ...
A question... Measuring RPM'S loaded and unloaded, intake and exhaust pressures is fairly easy.. but how would one go about establishing a HP rating for Tesla's motor.. As a somewhat educated guess, I chose to use a 12" turbine to use with my self-runner design. I chose that size based on the 200hp working model. But truthfully, I don't know.. Paul

My intent was to post information regarding a comparison of the Tesla Turbine and Green Steam Engine as promised, and I will do that this evening, but thought it might be best to answer some posts first - so here goes:

Measuring horsepower of a Tesla Turbine would best be done with a dynamometer for utmost accuracy, although I can offer you a way to make an approximate and somewhat realistic determination in your workshop. To obtain the measurement, you need to rotate the turbine at a steady measured speed while applying a measured counteractive force (torque) against the turbine's rotating shaft. The measurement should be taken at the turbine's output shaft, with no connections made to driven accessory items (such as a friction roller, for example). For now you simply want to determine the turbine output hp. You first need to equip the turbine with a flywheel. The diameter of the flywheel won't be that important - you could use a 5 inch diameter or a 25 inch one, or whatever. The flywheel width, however, should be substantial enough to allow a braking force to be applied against its surface. With that in mind, you could actually use an old rear brake drum assembly from a junked car, and make use of the mechanically activated emergency brake leverage to obtain the necessary counter-rotational force. Each click of the brake lever will apply more force, until you reach the desired force level. I'm sure you can picture that, right? Okay, now you must first take a torque reading to determine the torque required to turn your turbine's output shaft, with the brake drum attached, but with no braking force applied. You will need a ft/lbs torque wrench, to do this, and the force should be applied to a cap screw which has been inserted and tightened into the center of the turbine's output shaft end. Right now you only want to test the actual torque needed simply to cause the shaft to begin to rotate. It won't be much, and in fact may be easier to measure using an inch/lbs torque wrench. For example, if it requires 9 inch/lbs to move the output shaft, that equates to 3/4 ft/lb of torque. You record this measurement, and proceed to the next step. Now you need to start your turbine and bring it up to max rotational speed that is available for the steam temperature and output pressure you have chosen - let's say 325F degrees and 100 psi, for example. When up to max rpm for those factors, apply enough braking to bring the rpm reading down to approximately 5,252 rpm. This is a standard used in for measuring hp in dyno tests. The objective is to drop your speed as close to a constant 5,252 rpm as possible, but you want to do this as quickly as possible to avoid heat buildup on the braking surfaces. As soon as your output is a realistically steady 5,252 rpm, shut your steam supply off and let the turbine shaft come to a complete stop, but do not release any of the braking pressure. Now attach your ft/lbs torque wrench to the shaft bolt and immediately test the force required to cause shaft rotation. The reading, in ft/lbs, should be recorded, and the prior reading taken (without braking force) should be subtracted. The result in ft/lbs will be equal to the horsepower developed. The actual formula used looks like this:



As you can see, when the rpm equals the 5252 constant, they cancel each other out, leaving only HP = Torque in ft/lbs.

Of course it would be possible to obtain a higher HP reading if you used steam at a higher pressure and temperatre. A factor to keep in mind, though, is that you will be using a greater throughflow (volume) of steam. Your aim should be to use the least amount of steam pressure and volume that will actually be necessary to get the job done. To determine what is going to be most efficient for your application, you are going to need to do some testing, and there's no getting around that. Your idea of using 12 inch diameter discs may be overkill, considering that Tesla's 110 hp turbine used discs just over 9 inches in diameter. On the other hand, though, a large disc will offer better torque than a smaller one, with the only sacrifice being rpm. That's okay, of course, because we don't require a high rpm, and are more interested in developing torque to drive the friction roller. In my comparison of the Tesla Turbine and Green Steam Engine, which I will post later this evening, I think you will find some interesting facts that will help you determine what may be a good starting point for your build.

Rick

[rickoff]

Reply to everwiser:

Being that efficiency is the name of the game, any loss of heat, pressure, or fluid is a loss that will have a negative impact on the overall efficiency rating. Of course, depending on the application it may be negligible or maybe it will be less than the drag of a lip seal on a shaft but, either way, it needs to be taken into consideration.

I certainly agree with you, and no doubt that was partly Tesla's reasoning for including the seals. We want our working motive medium (pressurized water, oil, steam, air, or gas) to have only one way to enter, and only one way to exit. When we use steam as the motive medium, much of the steam will have condensed to water as it reaches the center area of the discs. As the water moves along the central axis towards the exhaust ports (at each end of the disc rotor assembly) we don't want any of this water to escape to the space between the outer discs and the housing. This space should be held at a minimum clearance, of course. Any water that does enter that space will be flung outwards with force, and that force has the potential to compress the outermost surface area of the outer discs inwards against the adjacent discs. I believe that this is one of the factors that led Tesla to conclude that the heavy duty outer discs, as shown in the British patent of post #282, were much preferred. Notice also the staggered pins in the patent illustration, shown as item #6, which are used to maintain proper spacing between the several discs. Preventing distortion, and maintaining the proper spacing, are critical factors in obtaining the best possible performance of the turbine.

Thanks for your constructive input, everwiser.

Best wishes, Rick

[rickoff]

A comparison of Green Steam Engine to Tesla Turbine

The purpose herein is to show the steam requirements, and resultant effectiveness of operating a 10 hp Green Steam Engine, and to compare this with requirements and results of the Tesla Turbine.

Some will remember that Lloyd Tanner's sustained steam test results, as shown in post #181 of this thread, showed that his 10" diameter, 36" long friction roller design converted 5 gallons of room temperature water to 600F degree, 300 psi superheated steam in 30 minutes. Keep in mind that Lloyd's test does not show the maximum heat that the unit is capable of producing, but is instead intended to demonstrate that a high yet safe level of sustained superheating is attainable. If wanted, more heat could be generated by increasing the roller speed and/or by increasing the force applied to the wood, but it is hardly necessary to do so since 600F degrees and 300 psi is already far above the requirements for operating a Green Steam Engine or a Tesla Turbine.

Let's look first at the 10 hp Green Steam Engine requirements. If you refer to my post #184, you will see that the required volume of steam to operate the engine at 1800 rpm, on 50 psi steam pressure, would be 504 liters per minute (lpm). The 50 psi relates very closely to what would actually be required to operate the Green Steam Engine at 1800 rpm under load. The actual steam production volume of Lloyd's test run was calculated at 542.81 lpm, which demonstrated a reserve capacity of 38.81 lpm beyond the operational requirement. Now at first glance that wouldn't appear to be enough additional reserve to accomlish very much else besides having a self runner. Think again, though. As I pointed out yesterday, in post #294, Lloyd's new 10" diameter roller doesn't need to require any more force to turn than a 5" diameter roller, but offers the equivalent surface speed of a 5" roller turning at 3600 rpm. Lloyd's original 5" diameter rotor was capable of sustaining 565F degrees with an operating pressure of more than 200 psi while operating at 1700 to 1800 rpm, and even that is way more heat and pressure than we need. The difference between the rotor and the roller designs is that the roller allows for more wood utilization, and thus offers greater volume of steam production. Incidentally, I received an e-mail from Lloyd this evening which stated that he actually used 14 pieces of wood, each weighted with 10 lbs force, during his test. Now suppose that we drop the rpm level of the prime mover to 900 rpm, thus cutting our steam volume requirement for the engine in half. We could do that, and probably have a greater percentage of reserve power left over than we would at the higher rpm, temperature, and pressure. The reserve power might be enough to operate an electrical generator. In any case, if we can have a self runner (which has been demonstrated as possible), then any amount of electrical co-generation is like icing on the cake. And don't forget the amount of radiant heat from Lloyd's device, which would surely be providing free heat for your home. Also remember that Lloyd's test was done by heating water from room temperature up to 600 degrees, nearly a ten-fold increase! If we recirculate exhausted and condensed steam back to the 5 gallon water hopper at 200 degrees, instead of introducing the next 5 gallons at 65 degrees, think how much less energy we will require to continue the next 30 minutes and beyond of steam production. And this will free up considerably more reserve power to run a generator. There is little doubt that the 10 hp Green Steam Machine is a viable choice, but let us now consider another alternative - the Tesla Turbine.

I gave the specifications, in an earlier post, for the Tesla 200 hp turbine, and I believe that infornation will be useful for a comparison. The 200 hp turbine was tested at the Edison Waterside plant in New York City, and the test was done with 300F degree saturated steam at 125 psi pressure. During the sustained test at 200 hp output, the turbine used 38 lbs of steam per horsepower per hr. Knowing that, we can proceed on the assumption that a 10 hp Tesla Turbine would require about 10 times 38, or 380 lbs steam per hour. Now saturated steam requires less heating than superheated steam, and the borderline between the two is known as the Dry Saturated Steam Line. Below this line, but at any point within the saturated steam, or "wet steam," region, a constant temperature is maintained, and increases or decreases in heating only affect the pressure and dryness factor of the steam. The constant temperature factor for the saturated Steam for the Tesla Turbine test, while produced as saturated steam at 352.926F degrees, had fallen off to a temperature of 300 degrees as it entered the turbine, and this dropped the steam to the Sub Saturated Water Region. What this means is that no steam was actually introduced to the turbine, and that the test was done using only very hot water (300 F degrees) at moderately high pressure (125 psi, or 8.5 times atmosperic pressure). At one atmospere (14.7 psi) wet steam begins to form at 212F degrees, but at 125 psi the threshold temperature is raised to 352.926F degrees. In the Sub Saturated Water Region, a pressure of 125 psi and a temperature of 300F degrees yields a volume of 0.0174421 cubic ft per pound. Therefore, 380 lbs (the amount required to produce 10 hp for 1 hour) would equal 6.623 cubic ft of volume used during a 1 hour test, or 0.11 cubic ft per minute, which equals 3.11 liters per minute.

So there you have the comparative figures. In my next post, I'll explain further what this means to us.

Best regards,

Rick

[rileydad48]

Rick...
You're one of a kind... Thanks for the great posts... it's just what I needed.

Paul

[rickoff]

Further info regarding Tesla Turbine vs Green Steam Engine

Hi folks,

Now that you have had time to ponder the information in my previous post #308, I will further explain what actually occurred in the Tesla Turbine test, and how we can draw a comparison conclusion.

You will remember that the Edison steam plant was producing saturated steam for Tesla's turbine test, but that for for some reason the steam had fallen in temperature to a point where it became sub-saturated water. Now basically, here is what may have occurred:
In short, no steam was introduced to the nozzle of the the turbine. Only very hot, moderately high pressure water was used, as mentioned in my previous post. After leaving the nozzle, and entering the turbine chamber, however, the pressure fell and flash steam was produced. Now here's a longer explanation of how this is possible. The Edison plant used some large steam engines to turn electrical generators, and these steam engines required a vast amount of steam. Thus, huge boilers were used to produce saturated steam, and fairly large diameter piping was necessary to supply the necessary volume of steam to the engines at a safe pressure level within the pipes. Let's assume, just for example, that saturated steam at an 85% dryness factor was coursing through a main supply line having an inside diameter of 2 inches. The temperature of that steam is about 353F degrees at 125 psi, and the actual pressure might be 200 psi, or even more. If 200 psi, the saturation temperature would rise to 388 degrees to maintain steam. Whatever these factors were, Tesla was well aware of them, and chose a supply line diameter and length to his turbine that would likely offer the best performance. He wanted sub saturated water at a temperature of 300F degrees, and at a pressure of 125 psi. This was no accident. It was relatively easy to obtain a 53 degree to 88 degree (in the case of 200 psi steam) drop in temperature, but this would also reduce the pressure considerably, and quite possibly below 125 psi. By utilizing a smaller inside diameter pipe between the main supply line and the turbine, pressure lost during the 53 degree cooling could be delivered to the turbine at 125 psi. So, as I said before, what you have at that entry point to the turbine nozzle is simply very hot water at a moderately high pressure. This is not steam, because the water temperature is 53 degrees below the boiling point of 353 degrees at 125 psi. So keep that in mind - the boiling point rises as pressure rises, and conversely it falls as pressure is lowered.

As determined at the end of post #308, one would introduce about 6.6 cubic feet of 300 degree, 125 psi water to the turbine nozzle during a 1 hour run with a 10 hp Tesla Turbine operating at full power, and that equated to 3.11 liters per minute. So what happens after this very hot water is introduced from the nozzle to the turbine chamber? The effective air space inside the chamber (chamber minus the disc assembly), and the size of the exhaust porting, cause the pressure to instantaneously drop from 125 psi to a lower pressure as it is ejected from the nozzle. The temperature is still 300 degrees at this point, but the reduced pressure immediately drops the boiling point requirement, and saturated steam is produced through what is known as the flash steam process. Let's assume, for example, that the pressure drops from 125 psi to 50 psi. This drops the boiling point to less than 300 degrees, and at a dryness factor of just 30% we would instantly have wet steam at a volume of just over 2 cubic ft per pound. We figured that the 10 hp turbine would use 380 lbs per hour at max output, so that's 6.33 lbs per minute, and thus a steam volume of 6.33 times 2 cubic ft, or 12.66 cubic ft per minute, which is equivalent to 358.5 liters per minute (lpm).

So you see in the above example, injecting 3.11 lpm of 300 degree water at the nozzle, at 125 psi, allowed for 358.5 lpm of steam production at a pressure of 50 psi. You will remember, from earlier posts, that we figured that the Green Steam Engine would require 504 lpm of 50 psi steam to operate at 1800 rpm, so this comparison is useful in the output to pressure sense. Lloyd's test showed the ability to produce 542.81 lpm, giving a reserve capacity of 38.81 lpm, or 7% of total steam production, when operating the Green Steam Engine. The Tesla Turbine, however, would have a reserve capacity of 184.31 lpm, or 34% of the production rate of Lloyd's device. What's more, is the fact that Tesla's rotary turbine will spin up to a much higher rpm level, for the same volume and pressure, than the Green Steam Engine. Instead of producing 1800 rpm under load, it should be capable of running at several thousand rpm. Remember that Tesla's 200 hp test showed a result of 9,000 rpm, and that a similar turbine having smaller diameter discs (let's say 12", rather than the 18" discs used for the 200 hp version) would operate at a higher rpm. Let's assume, for the moment, that we are only able to achieve 7200 rpm. Even at this rate, we could obviously reduce our operational steam requirements to lower the speed of the turbine to 1800 rpm, or we could opt to use 4:1 reduction gearing to effectively drive Lloyd's friction roller at 1800 rpm while using 1/4 of the turbine's output capacity. The friction roller would turn with ease, and we could then utilize a portion of the remaining 3/4 output of the turbine to drive a generator head to produce electrical power.

Keep in mind that the above examples are theoretical ones, but that they are in fact based upon actual test results and operational requirements of the devices that are mentioned.

The dinner bell is calling me, so I'll say bye for now. I hope this post has proved instructive and useful. I will try to come back later tonight and talk about the discs as used in the Tesla Turbine, as the construction, attachment, and assembly of the discs is very important for optimal performance.

Best wishes to all,

Rick

[rileydad48]

Rick...
After all your work.. there should be no doubt in anyones mind that a correctly built Tesla turbine can be used to make a self-runner.. with the Tanner boiler.. Great work.. Have you talked to Lloyd about the turbine?? I know he has a steam engine allready.. just wondering what he thought.. The next time you talk to him.. Thank him from all of us..

Paul

[rickoff]

Latest correspondence from Lloyd Tanner

As mentioned earlier, I received an e-mail correspondence from Lloyd Tanner on February 4th. I had asked him to confirm whether he was actually using the 10" diameter x 36" friction roller at 1800 rpm for his steam production test, and to also confirm how many 4" x 4" wood pieces he had used during the test. You will find his reply below. I have also asked Lloyd about the horsepower of the prime mover he utilized to rotate the friction roller for the test, and asked if it would be possible for him to measure the force in foot-pounds (using a torque wrench) that is actually required to start rotation of the roller when it is fully loaded with the force of the weighted wood pieces. I will post that information when I have Lloyd's reply.
-------------------------------------------------------------
From: LKTanner Sent:Wed 2/04/09 10:12 PM

Hi Rick - It was good to hear from you once again. I was beginning to wonder if you had frozen over there in Maine. We just got a few inches of snow here and that is a big deal for us.

Regarding your first question [about the friction roller], the answer is yes. I used 10 lbs. per wood piece and used 7 pieces of wood on each side for a total of 14. The reason you must allow one inch between each piece and one inch at each end is so they don't jam up. The reason for 10 lbs. per piece is because the wear factor can vary due to the hardness of the wood. I am working on a method of having the wood pieces move away from the friction roller when the desired temperature is reached and leaving the friction roller still turning and then returning to bring it back up to maintain the desired temperature again. It would kick in and kick out just like a refrigerator. That would save considerably in friction material.

Thank you for all of the information about the Tesla Turbine.

We are doing fine in this new year 2009. Our regards to you and your wife as well!

Lloydvar PS = "96689";
--------------------------------------------------------------------

It looks like Lloyd is experimenting with ways to lessen or remove, and then reapply force to the wood pieces as a means of automatically controlling the heat level. I believe that with the 5" rotor prototype he simply stopped the electric motor automatically when a certain level of heat was reached, and that the motor restarted when the heat level fell to a low preset level for the desired range. Such off/on restarts could be hard on the electric motor, though, with the wood forcing weights applied. It would probably be best to keep the force applied while stopping the motor, as it would act as a quick brake. After stopping, however, the force could be removed to allow the motor to start up again without laborious drag. Once up to speed, the force could then be reapplied. When using the 10" x 36" inch roller, however, with 14 wood pieces loaded, it may be best to keep the roller moving - as Lloyd appears to suggest. The friction heat level would probably tend to drop rather quickly if the force on the wood pieces is reduced or eliminated, so it might only take a few seconds before you reach the low limit of your desired heating. If that is the case, then of course it wouldn't make sense to stop rotation of the roller, and then restart it. I suggested to Lloyd that he might think about using closed end, lightweight, thin walled plastic cylinders filled with water to replace the barbell weights that he now uses. Each cylinder would hold 10 pounds of water, which is about 10 pints. The temperature sensing probe of an aquastat control device [as used for a household oil burning boiler] could be mounted near the steam vessel to detect the heat level, and this would trigger the high and low switches for the acceptable temperature range. As the high setting is reached, a switch would activate an air vent valve in the top of each cylinder, allowing either a partial or complete water dump from tubing at the bottom of the cylinders to a floor level holding tank. When the aquastat detects the low level of the desired heat range, a switch would trip to start a water pump (tiny Tesla pump would do fine for this) that would refill the cylinders from the bottom, and close the air vent valves at the top of the cylinders when they are full. That's the first thing that came to mind, anyways. Perhaps someone may have another, and better suggestion that I could pass on to Lloyd.

Again, I'll post Lloyd's next reply as soon as received.

Best regards to all,

Rick

[rileydad48]

Rick...

I take it we're talking about the heat in the roller encloser, rather than the steam chamber.. If this is so, then why couldn't you reduce the speed of the roller assembly, thus reducing the heat produced and as a result, reducing the wear on the friction material.. might be less complicated..??
If we're talking about the heat in the steam chamber, then it would seem like you would just need to increase the water flow to produce more steam at a lower pressure.. more steam then would be directed at electrical production.. Just thinking out loud... never thought we'd have too much heat..

Paul

[Jetijs]

Hi guys
Here is a video of my Tesla turbine first test run:
YouTube - Tesla turbine. First test run

I did this only to test how it would run. I used ordinary washers as spacers, but they are not precise, their thickness is not equal and I will need to get better spacers. Also the applied air forms a narrow stream that hits just some of the blade spacings and not all. So I still have much to do. But I liked the results of this first test, there is a lot of potential in this design
Thanks,
Jetijs

[rickoff]

Hi Paul,

Yes, too much heat is of course possible, and the system does therefore need to be regulated somehow. Thanks for the suggestions. These certainly would vary output, and are doable. My mind was thinking in terms of what Lloyd was aiming to accomplish, of course - the varying of frictional force while maintaining constant prime mover and driven accessory speeds. In the pumping/dumping scenario that came to mind, I envisioned that it would probably only require very small quantities of water exchange to maintain whatever force is needed to maintain steam production at a level which keeps the prime mover operating at a constant rpm. It may only be necessary to remove and then replace 5 percent of the force weight to govern the speed of the driving steam turbine prime mover. You really wouldn't want to remove all the force in a fast dump (other than as an emergency procedure). If you did remove substantial force weight, then of course the steam turbine would have much less rotational resistance and would momentarily rev up quite a bit. This speed increase would have three effects:
1. The increased speed of the turbine would use up more of the steam being produced because of the increased flowthrough.
2. It would briefly overdrive the generator, which is undesirable, although a protective circuit to prevent that could and should be employed.
3. It would also overdrive the water introduction to the steam vessel, which is one of the things you suggested doing. Delivering more water would have a cooling effect, and would drop both the temperature and pressure within the steam vessel. Any water that could not be instantaneously vaporized to superheated steam would pool in the bottom of the vessel, thus effectively turning the vessel into a conventional boiler. I'm sure that is something Lloyd is trying to avoid, if at all possible.

We could regulate speed of the prime mover simply by closing the intake as necessary, and the drop in speed would reduce the amount of frictional heating. That seems easy enough, but it would cause the vessel to go much higher with internal pressure until the temperature can drop, and you would then need to release that overpressure quickly, or have a dangerous situation. Of course you would have pressure relief valving in your system to handle that scenario, but it would result in wasting of steam potential.

Any slowdown of rpm regarding the turbine will also have a negative impact upon electric generation. For example, if you are using an induction motor-generator for electrical production (which will work great), you want to maintain a steady driven speed of 1855 rpm for a gen rated at 1800 rpm. This 3% of overdrive turns the motor into a generator with the same horsepower rating. If speed drops below 1800 rpm, though, it turns into a motor and begins to consume power. Incidentally, you can turn a 10 horsepower, 1800 rpm rated induction motor up to synchronus speed (1800 rpm) with only 1 horsepower from the shaft of the drive engine or turbine. Anyone interested in utilizing an induction motor-generator with Lloyd's device, or in any other application, will find some very useful information in my posts at the following links:
http://www.energeticforum.com/36557-post3.html
http://www.energeticforum.com/37441-post7.html

Just some things to consider. What will actually work out best for regulating the device remains to be proven, and also depends quite a bit upon the actual heat range that we want to be in during operation. And that depends upon our application of Lloyd's device. Lots of variables, and lots of possibilities.

Rick