Post by Uncle Buddy on Jul 10, 2013 16:44:34 GMT -8
Thanks, Tommy, I am looking forward to digging into that tonight. When I get my research institute, it will take a whole team of acousticians to finish all the projects I've started and stopped because you work so much faster than I am able to. Not complaining!
Post by Uncle Buddy on Jul 11, 2013 7:01:23 GMT -8
notes on Tommy pdf equalizer details
This new sheet of Tommy's is a dream come true.
My intuition as a piano tuner has always felt, but not seen, important length proportions in the equalizer and tank. Felt the importance of the proportioning AS SHOWN in the patent, but haven't been able to squeeze any specific, supportable meaning out of the feeling. Recently I became obsessed with the feeling that a first check valve had to be located at the tank entrance. This is because it has finally become clear that the tank length is not, as I forever assumed, a wavelength. Standard acoustics tells us that a tube with two closed ends is a half wavelength. So the proportioning of the whole equalizer plus tailpipe—1/4 tank length—is an eighth of a wavelength. The proportioning of the space between the check valves and the similar space between valve 2 and the open end of the tailpipe—1/8 tank length—is 1/16 of a wavelength. Just yesterday I spent hours juggling these proportions and others, looking for the key, sure it was on the tip of my tongue. Looking for Hammett's "about 3/8…" With eyes trying to close and not enough usable study done, it was pointless.
Anyhow, feeling that a first check valve had to be located at the tank entrance was due to the realization that a half tank length would be a quarter wavelength. Now Tommy has grabbed that general idea and done what all good brainstormers do, by taking only the good part, the essence of the intuition, and turning it on its head and on its side. Walking around it like a rabbit in a cage, viewing it from all angles, he has seen the obvious perspective, the big picture, the one I could feel I was missing.
I've been talking about the patterned intermeshing of unlike forces in a unifying field of some kind, another feeling hard to describe and impossible for someone with my lack of training to put a face on.
Tommy has given us the equalizer of Bob Neal on a silver platter, he's given us The Neal Tank. This is it, boys and girls, this is the big one.
The half tanklength as a quarter wavelength resonator? That's the downstream, second half of the tank, the half NOT occupied by the delivery pipe! This was a typical case of "didn't see the forest for the trees." Did I tell you the one about the fish who had never heard of water?
Just as mind-blowingly important, obvious and totally overlooked, the answer to the riddle of the two interacting mysterious mismatched forces, influencing each other to create a synergy of response…a mediation effect between two acoustic systems…an equalizer sitting with inexplicable seeming sentience between two resonators. One larger resonator, operating at the frequency of compressor pulsation, and within its sphere of influence a smaller resonator operating at a different frequency. The smaller resonator is a half-wavelength resonator, but its length is 5/16 of the tank length. There's nothing confusing about that as long as you keep reminding yourself that the small resonator has its own frequency, it is a half-wavelength so its frequency can be figured out from that.
The smaller resonator is, just as Hammett describes it, "about 3/8 of a wavelength" but as Tommy describes it, a half-wavelength resonator in its own right, operating at its own frequency. This is what I never understood about the 3/8 thing. But where does it get its own frequency from?
I'm going to stop there for tonight, in case I am already headed off on any wrong tangents, and let anyone else comment if they can. Tommy's "equalizer details" pdf, a single page of mind candy, is absolutely stuffed with insight and revelation, so I don't want my ranting to get ahead of the real thing, because I am not even close to getting a handle on all the details, I owe it a lot more study before I try to say any more.
Make sure you copy this document and send it to everyone you know, in case anything weird and unexpected happens to this website!
Post by Uncle Buddy on Jul 13, 2013 2:23:53 GMT -8
I'm going through all Tommy's attachments and most recent reading recommendations such as sound attenuation patents by Sharp and Sparks. Tommy's latest pdf is like a unified Neal theory so far.
There are many distractions right now which I'm wading through in hopes of making the time to go to a deeper level with this research. Every time we say, "It's time to build something," we learn something new to add to our knowledge of what Neal was up to.
It is all so interesting, and more than one source always has to be checked to get thorough understanding. The danger then is always to get lost on a new research thread instead of staying focused. Because all the little branches and offshoots are so interesting. When acoustic power starts making sense, it does get very interesting.
Hi Tommy. Your explanation of the relatively slow valve opening slightly out of phase with the wave acting sort of like a spark advance does make sense. I really am in awe of all the work you're doing. I'm not able to put in the time I would like to read and assimilate all this stuff but am just about keeping up. I dont fully get the pre-shock bit but do a bit. It sounds like you're saying there are effects that are beginning to push center crossings closer together, the beginnings of a frequency change. I'm not sure why this helps but as I said I haven't read enough.
I wondered if you could integrate any wave effects from exits from the pressure release valve from the tank with your wave theory? The paper on exhaust muffling was amazing and you've explained how the air line out of the tank helps optimise the equaliser.
I also thought from your previous explanations that the compressor cylinders did not necessarily empty their contents, the full volume, in one pulse. Depending on timing and pressures, there is a pulse into the main pipe from the compressor cylinder, as you say slightly delayed by valve inertia, which begins after the -p spike, and that 'mini-explosion' helps maintain wave energy. But before the +p peak there will be a point when then valve closes, or at least the pressure difference between main pipe and comp cylinder stops the contents of the comp cylinder emptying fully. It may empty some more when the next -p peak arrives. I might be wrong here and over complicating things. How does the frequency of the waves in the pipe match the speed / rpm of the compressor cylinders?
Where you wrote 'the timing of the air mass injection is determined by the inlet valve mass/time to move (inertia?), and by the time for the comp cylinder to purge' does the frequency of the -p +p wave and the point in that wave in the + direction which exceeds comp cyl pressure not also come into play?
Newt, Thanks much for the feedback. We need discussion to get moving forward with this project. Everyone comes from a different background and we need all those different points of view to work this thing out. We need to be able to explain and understand this project in simple terms.
NEWT:I wondered if you could integrate any wave effects from exits from the pressure release valve from the tank with your wave theory? The paper on exhaust muffling was amazing and you've explained how the air line out of the tank helps optimise the equaliser.
TOMMY: Good point, that the release valve would have some wave effect as well. If the storage tank is a half wave resonator, then that release valve is located at the p antinode.
1988 FLOYD NEAL INTERVIEW: UNC: Was the safety valve letting air out all the time or only when it was idling? NEAL: Well, it maintained that pressure. And if I remember right, I could hear the air leaving all the time, so I think it was producing quite a bit more even under load. UNC: So even when it was running, the safety valve was letting out a kind of a regular spurt? FLOYD: Yeah. Uh-huh. It made a hissing noise because he didn't muffle it. He just turned it loose.
TODAY: I have always suspected the positionings of safety valve and engine air outlet to be strategic in terms of acoustic effect. Tommy has shown, with industrial-strength patents and related scientific articles, the purpose of the air leaving for the tank at right angles. My interpretation so far is that this is so that the pulses out of the tank will not cause resonance in the engine supply line. The pulses out of the tank can still affect the wave in the tank though.
The safety valve's position and size are just as conspicuous. Directly facing the open end of the equalizer tailpipe, on a key reflective surface, where anything that the safety valve does WILL have an affect on our waves. These valves pop open suddenly against a strong spring, and are adjusted for different working pressures by the strength of the spring. Floyd Neal said that when everything was up and running, the pressure was always going above tank working pressure, which Floyd thought was 140-160 psi, not 200. (I think Tommy said the other day that 200 is a maximum for his analysis to work.) So what do we do with a "constant pressure reserve" as the patent calls the tank, when pressure is always trying to go over the set working pressure?
My brainstorm has always been that the system might depend on this attempted excursion above working pressure. Calls to mind Hammett's main contribution, which is to take air out at the negative peak, to reinforce the wave. We've been talking about valve inertia, so that the valve actually moves up to 180 deg out of phase with the wave. This could apply to the relief valve, which is literally nothing more than another check valve. If Neal had shown the relief valve off to the side, or smaller, I would have ignored it, but why put it right in the way where everything it will do would alter the wave activity?
So my brainstorm is that with lots of extra air coming into the tank, the system works better if the engine and accessory work devices don't use ALL the extra air. In this way, venting unused extra air could be like the frosting on the acoustical cake.
I can't help but think that there is overkill in thought going into Bob Neal's air tank. Maybe not... but being a practical sort wouldn't Neal have the Compressor and Engine portions on the same shaft for practical reasons rather than purposefully designing pulse matching? Does it really need to pulse match? Not so sure it does. Does anyone recall those standing bicycle pumps that came out a number of years ago (maybe still available?) that had the small air capsule at the base? You compress in the long vertical tube which I'm guessing had a check valve leading to that small storage capsule. I'm also guessing that there was another check valve leading to the air hose. Made it much easier to pump up a tire. You didn't have to frequency match or anything... When ever you felt like pumping on the stick, air would eventually make it into the tire and it was always easier than the old direct single tube variety. Reading the interview with his son Floyd Neal, it seems Mr. Neal utilized what was available, which was a street car air tank. In order to install the Equalizer, being the 2 check valves with a length of pipe twixt them (with a hole leading to the first tank section) he would have to cut open the tank to install that Equalizer support plate and have it rewelded by a competent pressure tank welder. Did he? Is it necessary? Probably but what if a fellow made it similar to the bicycle pump above? Two tanks with a check valve in front of each? Wouldn't that be simpler to test than trying to figure out things that Mr. Neal may have not even considered? Yes, I can hear it now, why don't I try it and report back. A fair suggestion but I suggest not to hold your breath on it. Since this is a forum that is what I'm doing, like the rest... It "may" be that the size of the hole and distance, twixt the 2 check valves is all that is needed to get matched to a stroke of the compressor, or volume of how ever many pistons stroke together in order to get some sort of reflected hammer effect. Again, is this necessary since Floyd said the tank was continually bleeding excess air? When you have THAT many compressor piston strokes not having to work very hard compared to the number of Engine pistons, it would seem the tank (or tanks in my test suggestion) would get filled. Food for thought. --fn
Furthering the concept of Mr. Neal having a less complicated design. What is the Volume input into the Tank vs. Volume out? Boyle's Law P1V1 = P2V2 Now if the compressor cylinder Volume (V1) is the same as the engine cylinder Volume (V2) in one revolution we have 14.7psi * 28 swept cylinders vs. 200psi * 2 swept cylinders 411.6 Lb vs. 400 Lb This would make sense that he would design the compressor side to supply what the Engine side needed. From this, it doesn't look like the vehicle would get very far ...excepting there is more to the equation. All that heat you jammed into a container. Combining Boyle's Law and Charles' Law P1V1/T1 = P2V2/T2, T is in Kelvin So then T2 = P2V2T1/P1V1, V2 is complicated defying the limits of this equation. The volume input to the higher pressure section mixes with the larger volume already there while a volume is leaving for the engine. The equation is for a closed volume as was the one before it but worked for comparing volumes. A differential equation would be in order here but not my cup of tea. However, looking at the equation P2 being 200psi and P1 being 14.7psi, one can infer that T2 is going to be hotter as one would expect. Further Mr. Neal added supply line heaters. They will be an additional drag on the engine but it seems the learned fellows feel there is more to be gained at that point than lost. The Tank higher pressure section volume likely 5 to 8 times the compressor input volume of 1 revolution. (5 to 8 times estimated from Tank section 16in Dia. X 24in from the Floyd Neal interview and Patent drawing. Using a square design of the compressor, which may or may not be the case, having 3 to 3.5 inch Diameter pistons and same length stroke as piston Dia. which also may or may not be the case.) Why is the lower pressure section of the tank so big? Not sure that it needs to be but possibly. If in every revolution the Engine side is consuming as much as the compressor outputs, when the Engine cylinder opens and pressure in the Tank high pressure side drops, the more air pushed in, the better. So the low pressure side volume needs to be sufficient for its pressure not to drop much during the squirt to the high pressure side. It seems that if there is crankshaft timing, it would involve more compressor flow when the engine cylinder is receiving air, making the flow through the Tank efficient (or possible). It would seem beneficial to insulate the tank if metal.
Is the air engine a heat engine? Certainly! Even in the case of just having air tanks run an air motor when it is cold outside. The air is cooled even further due to expansion in the cylinder. Is Carnot's heat engine efficiency theory accurate every time in every situation? Dr. Peter Lindemann showed that Not to be the case in his presentation of Open System Thermodynamics. It seem this Neal set up is sort of a cross between a heat pump and a heat engine. It is definitely Open System. Inlet and exhaust are both open to the atmosphere. --fn
It seem this Neal set up is sort of a cross between a heat pump and a heat engine. It is definitely Open System. Inlet and exhaust are both open to the atmosphere.
I need to study your posts carefully before trying to respond. I have no education so it's not easy for me, a conversation of this type, and it's a busy time for me. However, this is a public forum and maybe others will jump in too.
I agree that this is a kind of heat pump, since ambient air is entering the system directly, it's like a heat pump with no need for heat exchangers. You get all the heat this way, without having to wait for it to soak through the metal wall of a heat exchanger.
I don't think that air motors are the kind of heat engine that thermodynamics and the Carnot limit apply to 100%. When applying laws and scientific presumptions, compressed air has been the victim of overgeneralization. "The energy needed to compress air is uniquely unrelated to the energy needed to create it." Because a compressor is not a closed system. It is a rare (educated) individual who can cross the boundary of peer ridicule to even give these notions five minutes of objective thought. Plenty of perpetual motion nuts will agree with me before I open my mouth, but I don't particularly value their opinion since I find perpetual motion a boring topic, sorta like a cross between an elephant and a giraffe, who wants to even talk about it?
Dr. Lindemann thinks Neal's air engine is full pressure (non-expansive) and closed cycle (no exhaust). I doubt both these conclusions but he's pretty well convinced, last I knew. We haven't had time to carry on our conversation, this was some time ago.
More later, I have barely touched on what you said.
I can't help but think that there is overkill in thought going into Bob Neal's air tank... Does anyone recall those standing bicycle pumps that came out a number of years ago (maybe still available?) that had the small air capsule at the base? You compress in the long vertical tube which I'm guessing had a check valve leading to that small storage capsule. I'm also guessing that there was another check valve leading to the air hose. Made it much easier to pump up a tire. You didn't have to frequency match or anything... When ever you felt like pumping on the stick, air would eventually make it into the tire and it was always easier than the old direct single tube variety.
The focus on Neal is definitely overkill! And will remain so till we figure out what he did. The notion that we should be compressing air with 28-cylinder compressors is so absurd on the face of it that we Neal nuts risk ridicule with every step we take. There is a method to the madness, however. Since Neal's machine worked, and I tried for decades (off and on, without a budget or experience to work with) to make Neal work without making what Neal said to make... the idea is to figure out what made Neal do what Neal did in order to get his results. Without understanding that, we're shooting in the dark, and that is so time-consuming and expensive, experiments of that kind tend to get abandoned early in the game. The hope is that, once we have the why, we can improve on the what. No one on this forum wants to build a 7, 14, or 28 cylinder compressor, and that's one reason for all the yikyak. Procrastination in a way, forestalling the inevitable. The one guy I know of who did build a 7 cylinder compressor introduced too much innovation and ended up with something that failed for reasons not involving Neal.
I would hope that if someone did have the resources, they would simply build what Bob and Floyd Neal told us to build and forget all the endless second-guessing of those who had gone before. But remember that Neal's later versions, built in apparent defiance to the Nazi kidnappers after they went home empty-handed, had only 14 cylinders, really 7 double acting cylinders, and one double acting engine cylinder, half of what the patent shows.
The bicycle pump you mention sounds very interesting. If you find a link I'd like to see more, I'm not aware of this technology. I have often thought that the best way to get the word out about Neal, once we get it mastered, would be to sell a bicycle pump that works like cutting butter on a hot day, so people would get literally first-hand experience with what Neal had to offer. I gave up on my idea of blowing air into a truck tire with a drinking straw, when I realized that a hardware malfunction would cause your lungs to explode.
Thanks for your response UncleBuddy. But if you don't have the time, don't spend it!
As requested, a link to a bicycle pump like the one I described: www.aokbike.com/images/pump/APMS-12S.jpg In doing the search I see they have little 2 stage hand operated stick pumps to carry with bike now. I'm guessing similar concept ... rather than blowing your guts out on a high pressure tire. May have had them for a long time. I'm not up on bike stuff.
Very interesting that Peter Lindemann thinks the Neal engine is closed system. Very glad you mentioned this. It could make the thing work in the cold winter. Only have to replace heat lost, likely via the tube heaters in his patent.
In the other post location (Commons) I was suggesting that it likely wouldn't work below typical home heat pump temperatures and to remember Neal was in Arkansas where lots of heat in the air.
Regarding the 7cyl Compressor - 1 double acting Engine cyl. later version of Mr. Neal. His formula did not likely change. Volume X Pressure of air compressed into the Tank almost equal to the Volume X Pressure of air into the Engine. Work to compress about equal to work obtained Excepting Heat Energy. No surprise. So still need the heat in the air to make it work.
Yes, speculating can be bad ...or good. I think you may be missing the point of my speculating on Neal's set up. Does a Patent show what he really did? Is my lack of overkill less valid than trying to devine something from a document often known to omit, obscure, fake out, and hide things? (not that this one is trying to do that but who knows) Merely a matter of opinion at this point. There is no questions pistons go up and down.
To me the only significant questions are: 1. If the tank system is more special than the bicycle pump I described. Which I don't think it is. 2. Whether the crankshaft timing has some special effect other than pushing the most air into the tank at the time the Engine intake ports are open. If the tank isn't more special then the timing probably isn't more special either.
So if my speculations turn out to be correct then who would be wasting all the time?
If I'm wrong, not much time wasted in testing a double tank set up with a check valve in front of each. Actually a triple or quadruple tank in series with check valve in front of each since I also thought same as UncleBuddy that there may be a check valve in front of the Neal tank. Also those at the compressor outlet ports. And an air car enthusiast might learn something of benefit in the process anyway.
This will be the extent of my efforts on this subject. It is only to offer a simpler alternative for those who want to try it. It is just information. If someone wants to try great, if not that is okay too.
I definitely don't intend to criticize anyone, especially Tommy. He earnestly wants figure it out and that is good. --fn
Post by Uncle Buddy on Nov 22, 2013 8:06:25 GMT -8
fn, I am very happy to entertain your thoughts and will be spending more time trying to absorb your kernels of wisdom, as soon as possible. There is nothing wrong with the idea that the simplest explanation is the best one, and thanks again for posting your thoughts on the matter. The only reason I haven't got your point yet is that I haven't put the time into pondering your words one at a time. Your thoughts on Neal are not a waste of anyone's time, including mine.