# Model Steam engine use make free power for you shop



## SmithDoor

This is one to make power using small steam engines and has been use for over 100 years. Back in 2009 I work on drawings for this system. Looking in to this how to 1) was using high pressers steam and 2) Stirling Engine using Hot Air. Found using low pressure steam was the best way to store the power and heating the water. I stop working on due to ills but still have all the drawings an calc. Even today this is one best ways to make power for shops and home. 
Below is AutoCad plan on how it works. 


Dave 

PS this is a type of of boiler for steam engines 



http://gunsmithing1.tripod.com/webonmediacontents/1_How_low_temperature_solar_works.pdf


----------



## Tin Falcon

what point in the system is the 212 degree water heated into steam. ??

it is the phase change between liquid and vapor where the energy is gained and lost . it only take 80 calories to melt a gram of ice @0c  but 540 to change a gram of 100c water to steam. 
Tin


----------



## dman

my brother and i have been thinking about cheaper solar power. one thing we considered was using a parabolic trough to focus light onto photovoltaic cells so we need fewer of them. the problem is heat so you need to cool them so we thought about creating hot water to augment the boiler but you only need so much hot water, the rest we'd need to dissipate into the air (or swimming pool in the summer). so a steam engine would be fun to power with the excess but then it defeats the purpose of the photovoltaic cells to begin with. i wonder what kind or efficiency a solar steam engine would produce? could it match that of solar cells which aren't all that efficient in the first place?

even if the power from the steam engine was small you may be able to run a geothermal heat pump to cool your house or pump water over your ac condenser when the sun is shining in summer months.


----------



## SmithDoor

If you look at the drawing you will see ligh blue this is under a vucum -13 psi. Even power plants today use -psi on the last stages. Check out the Titanic propuison system on the last piston on the out put side was at 188 F deg. (9 PSIA or -4 1/2 pis)  going in to the turbine on the out put side of the turbine know the temperature is only 102 F deg (1 PSIA or -13 1/2 psi) This is steam at a very low temperature but take a vacum on the condenser coils. This just simple water pump. 

To find more information on the last stage try looking up old steam ships on the internet

Dave


QUOTE=Tin Falcon;201765]what point in the system is the 212 degree water heated into steam. ??

it is the phase change between liquid and vapor where the energy is gained and lost . it only take 80 calories to melt a gram of ice @0c but 540 to change a gram of 100c water to steam. 
Tin[/QUOTE]


----------



## Philjoe5

This thread has quite a  bit of blue sky thinking in it.  

Comparing the exhaust steam output and work of the titanic engine to that which could be obtained from a solar panel obtainable by the average home shop is a stretch.

Smithdoor, you have never introduced yourself properly, which is a basic forum rule.  Please do so in the Welcome section before continuing this thread.

Phil


----------



## Tin Falcon

Sir you still did not answer the question . 
I understand condensers create a partial vacuum. , and increase efficiency and power due to a lager pressure difference.  but where is the steam generated . it takes energy to change hot water to steam. lots of energy . it only take one calorie to raise the temperature of 1 gram of water 1 degree Celsius. ( the definition of a calorie.) but it take s 540 calories to turn that to same gram of water to steam . That much energy does not just appear.   I see three pumps in the system . They are either adding energy to the system and making it run if powered by an outside source or if powered by the generator taking energy out of the system and reducing efficiency. 

Tin


----------



## SmithDoor

Phil 
I am engineer and manufacture of Aircraft Hangar Doors for over 30 years. I my shop I had Machine shop, Fab and 3 man foundry. I am also a union Journeyman machinist in repairs. You can see my old web sit by using archives.org under the name smithdoor.com The company still is working today but I sold to work on solar power. Today I am work on my Garage machine shop on small projects and still looking at solar power after getting ill in 2009 (I had 3 surgerys and chemo in 11 months) . I also have a yahoo site on 9" south bend lathes http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/southbendlathe9 and a solar group http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/PowerSolar. On the solar site I have the drawing and calc for the system it fres to ever one today.

Even today a have a few wheel cast I plan on making small gas engine 

Dave



Philjoe5 said:


> This thread has quite a bit of blue sky thinking in it.
> 
> Comparing the exhaust steam output and work of the titanic engine to that which could be obtained from a solar panel obtainable by the average home shop is a stretch.
> 
> Smithdoor, you have never introduced yourself properly, which is a basic forum rule. Please do so in the Welcome section before continuing this thread.
> 
> Phil


----------



## SmithDoor

All the pump are small. The best way to look at this is on last few blades of steam turbine. This where they getting last out of the steam most over look that steam was at 350f deg going but out is around 100 f deg.  The best way to show this is the thrid enginee on the Titanic  188 F deg in out is 102 F deg.  all in a vacum

Dave




Tin Falcon said:


> Sir you still did not answer the question .
> I understand condensers create a partial vacuum. , and increase efficiency and power due to a lager pressure difference. but where is the steam generated . it takes energy to change hot water to steam. lots of energy . it only take one calorie to raise the temperature of 1 gram of water 1 degree Celsius. ( the definition of a calorie.) but it take s 540 calories to turn that to same gram of water to steam . That much energy does not just appear. I see three pumps in the system . They are either adding energy to the system and making it run if powered by an outside source or if powered by the generator taking energy out of the system and reducing efficiency.
> 
> Tin


----------



## Entropy455

Do not attempt to build this engine. 


It will not work.


Think conceptually: The boiler is high pressure, the condenser is low pressure. The resultant differential pressure between the boiler and condenser &#8220;forces&#8221; the stem through the engine. Unlike compressed air, the high heat capacity of steam maintains elevated pressures during work extraction. 


Without a differential pressure, you simply cannot extract mechanical power from steam. Consider a traditional boiler design, where a 150 psig boiler feeds a vented condenser. The boiler creates a differential pressure across the steam engine of 150 psig. Again, the pressure is the driving force of work extraction. The high heat capacity of steam slows the drop in pressure during work extraction &#8211; which is why water is the medium of choice for power plants, and not air. In the proposed design, you don&#8217;t begin to make steam until you draw vacuum on the boiler, which means that the boiler and condenser are operating at nearly the same pressure. The differential pressure across the steam engine will be practically nonexistent, and so will the power extraction.


There is another critical design flaw, which Tin Falcon pointed out &#8211; specifically: 


Saturated water (212 degrees F, atmospheric pressure) contains 180.12 BTU of energy per pound mass. If you port the saturated water into an evaporation chamber, and draw a vacuum on it equal to 5 psia, here&#8217;s what will happen: Approximately 27.7% of each pound of water that enters the evaporation chamber will flash into steam. The steam will have a temperature of 162.18 degrees F, and a specific volume of 73.525 cubic feet per pound-mass.


The remaining 72.3% of each pound of liquid water that enters the evaporation chamber will reduce in temperature to 162.18 degrees F, and will remain inside the chamber. This water must go somewhere, or you&#8217;ll fill up the chamber. As designed, the liquid water will be drawn through the steam engine, with no work output.


If you port the saturated water into an evaporation chamber, and draw a vacuum on it equal to 1 psia, here&#8217;s what will happen: Approximately 61.3% of each pound of water that enters the evaporation chamber will flash into steam. The steam will have a temperature of 101.69 degrees F, and aspecific volume of 333.49 cubic feet per pound-mass.


The remaining 38.7% of each pound of liquid water that enters the evaporation chamber will reduce in temperature to 101.69 degrees F, and will remain inside the chamber. Again, this water must go somewhere, or you&#8217;ll fill up the chamber. As designed, the liquid water will be drawn through the steam engine, with no work output.


Smithdoor, whoever told you that this engine &#8220;has been in use for over 100 years&#8221; told you a lie.


Additional design consideration: the available solar flux from the sun is about 1-kw per square meter (this is for a bright sunny day). If you assume a reasonable thermodynamic efficiency for the solar panel of 40%, and a reasonable 5% thermodynamic efficiency for a piston-steam engine operating at low temperatures, you&#8217;ll require just over 37 square meters of solar panels per one mechanical horsepower out (again, that's assuming a bright sunny day). Point being - there is a reason the solar industry is failing in a disastrous fashion. :fan:


----------



## Propforward

> All the pump are small. The best way to look at this is on last few blades of steam turbine. This where they getting last out of the steam most over look that steam was at 350f deg going but out is around 100 f deg. The best way to show this is the thrid enginee on the Titanic 188 F deg in out is 102 F deg. all in a vacum
> 
> Dave


 
But you haven't shown how you get your initial steam load. You show a "low pressure steam dome", but water enters that at (apparently) 212 F. What happens then? Do you have a heater on that vessel?

Just pulling a vacuum on it isn't going to raise the steam temperature to a point where you can do work with it. That is not how the Titanic engine functioned.


----------



## SmithDoor

Try this some day
1) get can with screw top that will seal the can
2) put 1 to 2 tbs of water in the can put the lid on do not seal the can
3) heat the can with water in side to 210 deg
4) seal can while it is at 210 deg use gloves
5) let cool down to 100 deg

Now see the power

Today most cars have vacum brake the most they put out is 14 psia (-14 psi) see the power they give on stoping. 

Dave


----------



## sunworksco

Thermal solar electric generation plants are 10% more efficient than photovoltaic power plants. Sterling engines are very successful in solar thermal electric generation .
ENTROPY455,
The solar industry is very successful, where countries have wholeheartedly promoted it.
Solar will generate the bulk of Germany's electricity in just a few years. 
The solar industry is so successful in Germany , in part, because we Americans have supported dirty technologies, instead of clean ones. Our country was, at one time, the manufacturing leader of green alternative products. This has created a boom of solar manufacturing in other countries. China and Germany now lead the industry in manufacturing and sales around the world. Also Germany is not controlled by the power companies, like we have here in America. Germany allowed any owner, be it residential or commercial, to sell back 100% of the electric generation at peak day prices to the utility companies. This was as high as [email protected] KW. Our public utility commission will not allow this. They only allow a very rediculous minute amount. Our federal government study has determined that we have enough geothermal energy to generate all of our energy needs. We could generate all of our electricity and build affordable electric cars, if the oil industry and automotive industry were not lobbying against it. Also take not that we are the only country in the developed world that allows foreign interests to contract American lobbyists to gain favor and power. 
We will not only need create independence from dirty energy but provide millions of domestic jobs. This is the change that should be made as if we were fighting a war against oil and the nations that would like us to not exist other than to recieve our dollars.
Regards,
Giovanni


----------



## Tin Falcon

> Try this some day
> 1) get can with screw top that will seal the can
> 2) put 1 to 2 tbs of water in the can put the lid on do not seal the can
> 3) heat the can with water in side to 210 deg
> 4) seal can while it is at 210 deg use gloves
> 5) let cool down to 100 deg
> 
> Now see the power


The above demonstration shows the principle behind the first steam engine. this was soon abandoned due to extreme  inefficiency .
Tin


----------



## SmithDoor

If you are using oil this is very true But solar is free and keep the cost low makes this pay to do solar steam.

*** FYI there three main reasons to use low temp solar
1) safety not use live steam
2) low cost on piping and storage of heat water
3) low cost of simple solar panels over the cost of parabolic mirror focused panels

Dave



Tin Falcon said:


> The above demonstration shows the principle behind the first steam engine. this was soon abandoned due to extreme inefficiency .
> Tin


----------



## Propforward

Your point number 3 is not a reason - it just says "solar panels", exactly what does that mean? 


I'll be honest, I am not convinced, for the reasons Tin has already outlined with far better explanation than I can manage. I just don't think you can generate the power you need to run a small machine shop with this set up in an efficient manner. 

I learned a long time ago not to get into internet arguments though, so all I will do at this point is give you my good wishes, and wish you success in your venture.


----------



## Brian Rupnow

A few years ago, I had a conversation with a mad scientist from California. He told me some interesting things. It seems that if you make a large balloon, half of it reflective mylar, and half of it transparent plastic? with the seam running vertically between the two halves, then when the baloon is blown up to become a perfect sphere, the focal point of the reflective mylar will be right in the center of the balloon. You then restrain the balloon from turning with the transparent side towards the sun. Somehow a coil of copper tubing is suspended at the focal point, and will flash water into steam almost instantaneously. The steam is used to run a steam engine (not sure whether piston or turbine, which runs a generator. The engine is powerfull enough to generate electricity AND a condenser, so that the steam is recaptured as water, making it an almost closed cycle. Seems these things were being tested for efficiency in Arizona, as a source of energy to get America away from oil dependancy.


----------



## Beachside_Hank

It just seems to me that all these theoretical arguments assume that the constant here is free energy. My own adventures in energy management have been directed towards reduction, not self- reliance, and I am pleased beyond measure with the results. Location: Florida, U.S.A. Home: Single level concrete block/ stucco, slab, approx. 1600 sq. ft. In this past year since buying this property, I have installed H.E. vinyl windows with gas filled and tinted glass. Increased attic insulation. Fabricated and installed Cypress wood Bahamas- style[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GU2fEdGwD84&list=UUu_V0DUQ3ESxRWmqEWqUhJw&index=4&feature=plcp"] louvered shutters[/ame]. Downsized my heat pump from a 3- ton unit to a 2-1/2 ton H.E. unit thanks mostly to the prior 3 upgrades. Energy needs for the same period this years vs. last (before the upgrades) average about 52% less. My handler gives a thumbnail sketch payback time frame of about 12 years, so any further adventures in improving my situation would probably take the form of passive solar heating of my water system needs, a common feat down here and relatively easy to implement.


----------



## Propforward

You make very good points Hank. Your approach is solid - using the available resources to manage energy consumption in sensible ways. Using solar to heat hot water and reduce electrical load makes sense - the other energy saving ideas are very smart.


----------



## Herbiev

The first question that came to my mind was the pressure differential as Entropy pointed out so I was expecting to see some complex non return valve arrangements. 
Second question is where and how is the steam generated. A large parabolic mirror focused on the steam dome? If you have built one of these units Dave, can we see a video please


----------



## SmithDoor

I made this more clear 

3) low cost of simple solar panels over the cost of parabolic mirror focused panels

FYI I 10 years ago look at the higher temperue steam 
The  212 f deg is safer to use over 350 F deg and the cost to keep safe is  lower 


Dave




Propforward said:


> Your point number 3 is not a reason - it just says "solar panels", exactly what does that mean?
> 
> 
> I'll be honest, I am not convinced, for the reasons Tin has already outlined with far better explanation than I can manage. I just don't think you can generate the power you need to run a small machine shop with this set up in an efficient manner.
> 
> I learned a long time ago not to get into internet arguments though, so all I will do at this point is give you my good wishes, and wish you success in your venture.


----------



## Propforward

Well, I look forward to seeing it in operation, but you'll excuse me if I don't hold my breath.


----------



## gus

Entropy455 said:


> Do not attempt to build this engine.
> 
> 
> It will not work.
> 
> 
> Think conceptually: The boiler is high pressure, the condenser is low pressure. The resultant differential pressure between the boiler and condenser forces the stem through the engine. Unlike compressed air, the high heat capacity of steam maintains elevated pressures during work extraction.
> 
> 
> Without a differential pressure, you simply cannot extract mechanical power from steam. Consider a traditional boiler design, where a 150 psig boiler feeds a vented condenser. The boiler creates a differential pressure across the steam engine of 150 psig. Again, the pressure is the driving force of work extraction. The high heat capacity of steam slows the drop in pressure during work extraction  which is why water is the medium of choice for power plants, and not air. In the proposed design, you dont begin to make steam until you draw vacuum on the boiler, which means that the boiler and condenser are operating at nearly the same pressure. The differential pressure across the steam engine will be practically nonexistent, and so will the power extraction.
> 
> 
> There is another critical design flaw, which Tin Falcon pointed out  specifically:
> 
> 
> Saturated water (212 degrees F, atmospheric pressure) contains 180.12 BTU of energy per pound mass. If you port the saturated water into an evaporation chamber, and draw a vacuum on it equal to 5 psia, heres what will happen: Approximately 27.7% of each pound of water that enters the evaporation chamber will flash into steam. The steam will have a temperature of 162.18 degrees F, and a specific volume of 73.525 cubic feet per pound-mass.
> 
> 
> The remaining 72.3% of each pound of liquid water that enters the evaporation chamber will reduce in temperature to 162.18 degrees F, and will remain inside the chamber. This water must go somewhere, or youll fill up the chamber. As designed, the liquid water will be drawn through the steam engine, with no work output.
> 
> 
> If you port the saturated water into an evaporation chamber, and draw a vacuum on it equal to 1 psia, heres what will happen: Approximately 61.3% of each pound of water that enters the evaporation chamber will flash into steam. The steam will have a temperature of 101.69 degrees F, and aspecific volume of 333.49 cubic feet per pound-mass.
> 
> 
> The remaining 38.7% of each pound of liquid water that enters the evaporation chamber will reduce in temperature to 101.69 degrees F, and will remain inside the chamber. Again, this water must go somewhere, or youll fill up the chamber. As designed, the liquid water will be drawn through the steam engine, with no work output.
> 
> 
> Smithdoor, whoever told you that this engine has been in use for over 100 years told you a lie.
> 
> 
> Additional design consideration: the available solar flux from the sun is about 1-kw per square meter (this is for a bright sunny day). If you assume a reasonable thermodynamic efficiency for the solar panel of 40%, and a reasonable 5% thermodynamic efficiency for a piston-steam engine operating at low temperatures, youll require just over 37 square meters of solar panels per one mechanical horsepower out (again, that's assuming a bright sunny day). Point being - there is a reason the solar industry is failing in a disastrous fashion. :fan:



You make good sense. Am doubtful solar heaters will raise enough BTU to get reasonable steam pressure/volume to spin a small recip steam engine.


----------



## SmithDoor

The heat from the sun is 600 to over 800 watts  per square yard or just under square meter. On a 2000 square foot home roof will be around 133,333 watts to 177,777 watts. source is from http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/old_data/nsrdb/redbook/atlas/ 

Dave



gus said:


> You make good sense. Am doubtful solar heaters will raise enough BTU to get reasonable steam pressure/volume to spin a small recip steam engine.


----------



## Entropy455

sunworksco said:


> The solar industry is very successful, where countries have wholeheartedly promoted it.


 
The 90-billion in taxpayer dollars spent on US solar R&D was wholeheartedly invested &#8211; however the vast majority of the funds proofed into oblivion. 

Solar cannot replace coal, oil, and/or nuclear - there&#8217;s simply ins't enough energy density in solar power.

Consider a hypothetical 70-horsepower all solar-powered electric car. The energy losses within the motor windings will be about 25%, and the motor&#8217;s solid-state controller (power inverter and pulse-width modulation) will suck another 7%. Thus the actual electrical power required to put 70 horsepower to the road, will be about 100 horsepower. At 746 watts per horsepower, this equates to a power requirement of  about  75,000 watts to move a 70-horsepower car down the road.

Currently the most efficient mass-produced solar panels have an energy density output of approximately 140 watts per square meter (on a bright sunny day). Thus to drive a 70 horsepower car under &#8220;sun&#8221; power, you&#8217;ll need a solar panel sized 536 square meters. On a car, that would be a rectangle panel six feet wide, and 107 feet long (not possible). You&#8217;ll also need to double the cell area for driving on overcast days. And you can&#8217;t drive at night. Thus a battery system &#8220;could&#8221; be used, however now the cell area really needs to be increased in order to charge the battery while also driving the car.

The 70 horsepower number is valid. Most automobiles have much higher horsepower engines under the hood, however for steady-state driving down the road, 70-horsepower is a reasonable &#8220;average&#8221; power requirement to overcome drag forces on the freeway. When accelerating hard, a vechile can easily require several hundred horsepower.

To really drive home the point on how "not-good" solar is, let&#8217;s look at the energy requirements needed to get US cars off of gasoline (which is the ultimate goal of the green movement). There are approximately 250 million registered cars in the United States. Of those 250 million, about half are daily driven. Assume the total minutes driven each day for daily-driven cars is 40 minutes (some drive more, and some drive less &#8211; however 40 minutes is a rough, yet reasonable average approximation).

Powering half the daily driven cars (assuming they're running 70 horsepower electric motors) is equal to a power requirement of 2.6042 × 10^11 watts. On a bright sunny day, assuming a solar panel output of 140 watts per square meter, you&#8217;d need a solar panel sized 2,155 square miles &#8211; which is about 1000 square miles larger than the entire state of Rhode Island. . .

What about going nuclear to get cars off gasoline? You would have to build 261 one-thousand-mega-watt nuclear power plants to produce 2.6042 × 10^11 watts. Even if we could build 261 of these one-thousand-mega-watt reactors, the electric grid cannot route the power, nor can we produce enough batteries to store the charge.

There&#8217;s a reactor fuel supply issue also. One kilogram of U-235 will produce about 1000 mega-watts of thermal power, for 24 hours - as it undergoes nuclear fission. A typical thermodynamic efficiency for a commercial nuclear power plant, is about 25 percent - thus a 1000 mega-watt reactor plant will consume 4 kilograms of U-235 per day in producing the required thermal power for the electricity production. This means 261 reactors would consume 2297 pounds of U-235 per day, or 419.2 tons of U-235 per year, to get cars off of gasoline.

The &#8220;real&#8221; inconvenient truth is that even if we were able to build 261 new 1000 mega-watt reactor plants (which would never happen after the Japan meltdowns), we simply cannot supply the required 419.2 tons of fissionable fuel per year. Just as we cannot cover 2,155 square miles of Earth with solar cells.

Yes Germany is investing heavily in solar and wind. Yet with all their investments, coal-power continues to be their prime source of electricity. Now that Germany has killed their nuclear industry, they are importing electricity to meet their energy demands.

I studied power plant design in college. My mechanical engineering degree was heavily based on thermodynamics and machine design. I can tell you with a high degree of confidence, that there&#8217;s no such thing as a free lunch. Humans are gross energy consumers. The only viable way to reduce our current energy dependence on fossil fuels and nuclear power (without significant cuts to our current rate of energy consumption) is through undiscovered breakthroughs in fusion power - or perhaps tapping into and somehow converting gravity into electrical power - perhaps through some futuristic string-theory reactor.

My recommendation to any folks who are considering investing within solar or wind, is don&#8217;t do it. As soon as the government subsidies dry up, so will the industries. Instead I would invest in theoretical energy research. Or perhaps within companies that are perfecting technologies to scrub coal combustion byproducts.

Sunworksco, I know you don&#8217;t like reading what I posted. Nonetheless, please check my numbers, and tell me where I'm wrong. . . . ?


----------



## Robsmith

what about helium 3       ha ha ha ha


----------



## tups

Entropy455 said:


> Solar cannot replace coal, oil, and/or nuclear - theres simply isn't enough energy density in solar power.



Entropy455 - I have no beef with you or your assertions, but I felt I needed to react because what you write is intellectually unfairly presented. Of course there is enough energy density in solar power to do something useful. All fossil fuel was once biomass, and solar-energy derived. That we are too lazy to extract it directly does not mean the energy is not there.



Entropy455 said:


> Consider a hypothetical 70-horsepower all solar-powered electric car. <snip> Thus to drive a 70 horsepower car under sun power, youll need a solar panel sized 536 square meters. On a car, that would be a rectangle panel six feet wide, and 107 feet long (not possible). Youll also need to double the cell area for driving on overcast days. And you cant drive at night. Thus a battery system could be used, however now the cell area really needs to be increased in order to charge the battery while also driving the car.


 
No-one asserted that you need to extract the solar power from the roof of the car while you are driving - there is no reason not to use a dedicated facility to turn solar power into electricity, and use that to charge your car ...when you're not driving it. Electricity storage, that is where the real bottleneck is, and that is what the research needs to go towards. What else is gasoline than conveniently stored (fossil) solar energy ?



Entropy455 said:


> To really drive home the point on how "not-good" solar is, lets look at the energy requirements needed to get US cars off of gasoline (which is the ultimate goal of the green movement). <snip> On a bright sunny day, assuming a solar panel output of 140 watts per square meter, youd need a solar panel sized 2,155 square miles  which is about 1000 square miles larger than the entire state of Rhode Island. . .


 

Have you looked at a map of the US ? Have you checked what the size of the state of Rhode Island is ? It would be feasible to put a setup approximately 10 times as big as that in the Utah/Arizona/Texas/New Mexico desert without having to disown anyone's house. Have you checked how much land agriculture uses in the US (and worldwide)? Would you classify that as unfeasible too?

I could use the exact same argument about the feasibility of driving cars in the US on gasoline - you need approximately 3 billion barrels of oil for that annually. That is, according to my back of the envelope calculation, an oil bath the size of the state of Rhode Island about 7 inches deep. Somehow that does not seem to constitute a problem at present.




Entropy455 said:


> nor can we produce enough batteries to store the charge.


...and *this* is what the problem is.

So what do you suggest exactly? Sit back, do nothing and sulk until someone invents a string theory reactor ? Investing in fusion on earth is a bit silly when you have a practically inexhaustible 6500K source of fission energy up in the sky from between 6 and 18 hours every day, wouldn't you say ?



Entropy455 said:


> Sunworksco, I know you dont like  reading what I posted. Nonetheless, please check my numbers, and tell me  where I'm wrong. . . . ?



For me, the main issue is that posts such as yours, however well-intentioned and however well documented with fact, carry a constant undertone of "it can not be done", even if the figures themselves do not seem to state this so clearly as you imply. Whenever someone passionately states that something cannot be done, usually he is wrong.
The "it can not be done" undertone, or more perhaps exactly the statement "at present we do not have a solution", very often is misinterpreted as "then we do not have a problem" and used as an excuse to go for another year, or two, or ten, or twenty, with an uninsulated house and a 12 mpg car.
That is what ticks me off.

Rant over. I need to go teach now. Thermodynamics.

 Cris


----------



## dman

as far as solving the energy crisis we could invest in good old steam power (created by nuclear reactors) and do what we can with solar with grid tie in inverters. if nothing else it'll ease the load in peak hours and reduce summer blackouts. 

i think solar steam could work but maybe not in a low pressure system. with parabolic reflectors you can create quite high temperatures and could maybe run a turbine. as cool as a piston steam engine would be chugging away in the corner of the shop even if you got high pressure steam from sunlight lets be honest the noise would eventually get to you.


----------



## SmithDoor

Low pressure turbines was built over 100 year ago to run on the steam from the Triple expansion reciprocation engines use in power plant and ships. Before 1900 there was few quadruple reciprocation engines.

* Yes if was building a power plant that was selling the power from I would use the high pressure steam 
* BUT I would not use this type in most homes as this is live steam 

Keeping the temperature below 212F deg. safer than 350 F deg for home use.
I have even work on using 260 F deg. (24 psi) but still not safe for home use but would work in shops where they working 7 to 6. This cost less to keep up on the solar panels over the higher temperature systems. 

I have found it hard to fine any data on the low temperature side. All the data in on oil/coal fire and how to get the most out the oil/coal

FYI try this for turbine was designed to develop about 16,000 shaft horsepower using a water temperature of only 188F deg This was build in 1914 and work for 30 years. 

Dave



dman said:


> as far as solving the energy crisis we could invest in good old steam power (created by nuclear reactors) and do what we can with solar with grid tie in inverters. if nothing else it'll ease the load in peak hours and reduce summer blackouts.
> 
> i think solar steam could work but maybe not in a low pressure system. with parabolic reflectors you can create quite high temperatures and could maybe run a turbine. as cool as a piston steam engine would be chugging away in the corner of the shop even if you got high pressure steam from sunlight lets be honest the noise would eventually get to you.


----------



## Propforward

Hi Dave SmithDoor,

Out of interest, how big do you think your low pressure steam engine will need to be, and what will it cost to make, for you to power your shop with it?

You did say the power would be "free", of course that's only after you've shelled out the cash to make it - so what will it cost? I'm interested to see the economics and payback on it.


----------



## SmithDoor

The cost in 2009 was under $4,500 and the time build this was less than 160 hours Note this include Fab, machining all parts, piping and wiring For 5 to 10 kw use 50 gal storage tanks. This does not include disign and drafting time.

The drawing that show is after 2009 using large amounts of water for year around use. This can also be use for heating a home. This not hard where I live but on the East cost and North of CA Ever one need heat. 

Try figuring how must it would cost to heat a 30,000 gal pool of water for 100 F. deg to 212 F deg. Now think of heating your home with this pool of water. What make this work is two pools of water one hot and one cold each pool would hold 30,000 gal but you pump from hot pool use the heat and returning to cold pool. 

Dave





Propforward said:


> Hi Dave SmithDoor,
> 
> Out of interest, how big do you think your low pressure steam engine will need to be, and what will it cost to make, for you to power your shop with it?
> 
> You did say the power would be "free", of course that's only after you've shelled out the cash to make it - so what will it cost? I'm interested to see the economics and payback on it.


----------



## Philjoe5

Gentlemen,
I think we have come to some realization of what the word "free" may mean to some individuals.

I suggest this thread be continued at one of the many solar forums on the internet

Your friendly Moderator,
Phil


----------



## Entropy455

Getting back on topic &#8211; 

The Titanic&#8217;s low pressure turbine was a great innovation. Low pressure turbines add appreciable thermodynamic efficiency to a power plant &#8211; even more so when re-heat stages are utilized.

That being said - the Titanic used 210 psi boilers which drove the first stage piston. The second stage piston saw 78 psi. The third stage piston saw 24 psi. The steam exiting the third stage piston (which was the energy source to the titanic&#8217;s low pressure turbine) was at 9 psia.

One KEY point that is being overlooked in this discussion, is that the steam source to the Titanic&#8217;s low pressure turbine (while sitting at 5.7 pounds less than atmospheric pressure), was still at a higher pressure than the condenser. Reason: the Titanic&#8217;s condenser was air-ejected, and operated at 1 psia &#8211; resulting in an 8 psig differential pressure across the low pressure turbine for work extraction.

In contrast - you cannot boil warm water from drawing a vacuum on it, and then extract mechanical power from the steam - because there&#8217;s no differential pressure driving the engine.

Respectfully, you are taking one aspect of the Titanic&#8217;s propulsion system WAY out of engineering context.


----------



## Philjoe5

Cost and Engineering covered.  Good work folks!

Phil


----------



## Herbiev

I agree with Phil


----------

