Want to add that, to me, it appears the McClintock patent is a continuous process. Notice that he uses the same cylinder for compression and for expansion, IMO in an attempt to save all the heat energy for high efficiency. However, by using a continuous process, he must experience very high, extreme, temperatures and that appears to be the downfall of this device, why we do not see it being used today.
Post by Uncle Buddy on Nov 22, 2013 17:45:24 GMT -8
Thanks for the pdf, Tommy. The writing is very clear and it all makes sense.
The first question to always ask re: Neal, in my opinion, is What makes this machine NOT an impossible perpetual motion scheme. Thus it took me a long time to accept that acoustic power could compress air many times cheaper than other methods. Neal is possible, not because the compression equation necessarily changes if compression is done by a wave vs. a piston, but because the energy of a sound wave, as it turns out, is largely the pre-existing molecular motion that was there before the acoustic source plucked it like a guitar string. The sound wave is just an orderizing of existing ambient energy, also known as heat.
from Tommy: If the tank system is like the bicycle pump, then we have a round-robin system. This would not be free-running, it would require a continuous input of energy from a mechanical piston. To be free-running will require some other source of energy input, and we will need to identify that source.
fn reply: 2 different things to address...
Round Robin: So you are then saying heat pumps don't work? I see the Neal set up as an open system Heat Pump. Draws in ambient temp. heat from the environment into the compressor as air, concentrates that into higher Temperature and Pressure via the compressor into the Tank, expands that via the Engine side into ambient or less Temp., Press. also goes to ambient as it is exhausted. Repeat. (A closed system would have the expanded cold air run through a finned heat exchanger such as a radiator drawing in heat from the environment. Just like a heat pump.)
What IS round robin is the Pressure! Much of the work to compress is regained via the Engine side via pressure. The ambient heat concentrated via the compressor side is the additional energy that makes the thing go which is also supplied to the Engine side at the same time. Think Heat Pump for identifying that other source of energy input. In this case as in others, free solar energy from the air.
Free-running: The Neal patent shows (to me) a compressor running at nearly 15psig. Meaning that if you put a guage on the pipe leading to the tank, it would read 15 psig. From the Neal Patent: "the compressors are only pumping against 15 pounds" He then goes onto write: "or atmospheric pressure" These last 3 words are what I believe is causing people to believe in magic. It is my guess that Neal confused 15psig with atmospheric(0-psig, or 14.7psi roughly 15psi absolute). ...Since I have no idea what you would need a water jacketed compressor for to push atmosheric or 0-psig air around. The only way to do it in his set up would be to sawcut a gap into the tank supply line!
If that cramps the free-running theory, so be it. Could it work at 30psig? Probably, just less power, since more consumed in the compressor section.
Can the Neal tank work with a Tank supply pipe pressure of 0-psig? If it could, then there would be NO need for the compressor!
You have me lost. The Neal patent shows a mechanical piston, several of them, supplying air in a pulsed fashion, as ALL piston compressors do. They cannot supply air at 0-psig in his configuration.
I never said I didn't undertand pressure waves and acoustics. Only stated that designing for them MAY not be necessary. Maybe they are necessary. Maybe you will get their effect or some of it, regardless, due to the pulsing action of piston compressors.
What I am saying is that if whomever, can keep pumping 4cfm(or some constant amount) at 15psig via a piston compressor through a check valve into a small tank with a check valve to another tank and a check valve to another tank, with the last two tanks having identical shape and size, with the last tank in the series pre-charged to its maximum safe level (200psig in theory, maybe 150 for your tank?) you may get the 0.3cfm at 200psig out (according to the P1V1 = P2V2 equation, likely to be losses) until your compressor burns up, and why Neal water cooled his. Typical compressors are NOT designed to run continuous as Neal's apparently was. I may get around to doing this test myself in a few years. Just mentioning it now for anyone else that may want to try. Conceptually similar to a two or more stage bicycle pump. Alternatively, likely easier to leave the last tank uncharged and see if it will reach 200psig.
Anyway, if the Neal system operates as a Heat Pump, and you utilize that ambient heat to provide energy to a Heat Engine (rather than house heat), which the air engine is, then you are using ambient energy to fuel the system. Not round robin. Connecting the Air Engine to the Air Compressor via common crankshaft is an ideal way to recycle the Pressure Energy, sort of similar to how Dr. Thomas Edwards did in his ROVAC system, a rotory vane air cooling system which is a compressed air system described in Dr. Peter Lindemann's Open System Thermodynamics lecture (inexpensive download)
I do appreciate the comment. Made me figure out what I sensed something to be awry with Neal's 15 pounds or atmospheric statement. ...along with reminding me that compressors can have heat issues.
Now I would be surprised if Neal didn't wrap compressor cooling water tubes around his Tank and insulate. Might be necessary when the outside temperature is low. With that in mind, I view the electric tube heaters on the Engine compressed air supply to be a cold start device. Patents don't always show all. --fn
Post by Uncle Buddy on Nov 24, 2013 16:52:09 GMT -8
I'm always willing to entertain the notion that an ordinary air engine/compressor combination can go slightly overunity if almost all the compression heat is conserved and ambient heat is also introduced. The equipment would all have to be very efficient, and the Neal unit with the common crank and the work load distributed in small bites instead of one or two cylinders might help with efficiency. People make too much of friction, in my opinion, the only friction loss is the kind that actually destroys rubbing parts. The kind of friction that ends up as heat, well that's just more air engine fuel, not really a loss. The other loss common to compressed air is expansion, but this is also not a loss. For example, if the air has to go around an elbow or even tighter curve, or a restriction, or just through a section of piping, there will pressure loss. However, the old texts point out that this is not an energy loss, because it's internal to the air, so unlike pressure loss in hydraulics, if the air expands, or loses pressure, then its volume increases.
In the article Reheating Compressed Air, the air engines they tested were shown to have a mechanical efficiency of over 95%. There is nothing wrong with this. Skeptics love to use the internal combustion engine, which operates under hellish and high rpm conditions, as the model for everything, then we are supposed to assume that all engines, especially these silly old clunker expansion engines that barely worked (ha!) are supposed to be even less efficient. The opposite is the truth. Low tech can be inherently more efficient than the complex junk being shoved down our throats by today's version of engineering.
Once a guy emailed me and said he had gotten overunity out of a combination of ordinary off-the-shelf equipment, and he thought my whole website was therefore a waste of space. When I asked him for a picture, he took a photograph of his computer screen with nothing visible on it. When I asked him for a video of his machine, he never spoke to me again. This doesn't mean he was lying, he just wasn't friendly, computer-literate, etc. Most wanna-be inventors are not very friendly, so there could be a lot of people out there proving the potential of air and not saying anything about it.
If you read (and believe) Simons' explanation of how compression work all becomes waste heat, it seems to imply that the maximum C.O.P. of an air engine/compressor combination might be 1.4. If so, then by the time losses are taken into account, it's likely that the attainable C.O.P. in reality would be only slightly over 1. This is the sort of thing that would get a lot of inventors excited enough to patent and publish, then when they get investors and the dang thing can't be scaled up to run auxiliary equipment, they lose interest and move on to gravity motors or magnet motors or something. Personally I have no interest in free energy, I just got hooked on a neat idea that should not be lost if it does work.
Maximum recoverable compression work adds 1 to C.O.P., no more. Maximum obtainable expansion work adds another 1, no more. Simons seems to suggest that in a conventional compressor/expander unit, 0.4 is all that can be expected out of ambient heat.
But incredible claims have been made about machines that didn't seem to resemble Neal at all. Rohr said he was making three times the energy needed. His device included huge flywheels, putting the compressors inside the tank, and probably more. His system was so secret, he appears to have divided it up into three patents, then obtained the patents in three different countries. Chaquette had a system identical to Rohr but much bigger, the size of a building, but his claims are off the chart. Unbelievable. But was he some kind of delusional loser? There is no indication of it. When an avalanche destroyed his house, he carried his injured wife to safety, even though he had a broken arm. Doesn't prove nothing, but sounds like a decent type to me, not someone who would lie to the newspaper reporter to attract investors. I think most of these guys got intimidated and sold their machines to the cartels, just as the rumors say, or else due to their unsociable attitudes, they just couldn't make any headway in the business world.
On the other hand, there are several other overunity air claimants who sound like they have done what Neal did or something very similar. Truitt with his top secret valve that worked like a heart. A guy in 1904 who had a device that relied on pumping from chamber to chamber. A guy in Akron who had a chambered tank with special valves. A guy who talked about using vacuums and valves. A guy who talked about how he had learned how to unbalance compressed air. George Heaton said he put low pressure air into a high pressure tank, by pulsing the air.
So while it is probably possible to go slightly over unity without relying on anything except heat conservation and drawing in ambient heat, I think a much higher COP is obtainable by relying on the existing molecular motion of air molecules, to do as Maxwell said. If the random motion can be orderized, then unequal pressure zones spring up, which can be taken advantage of. I think this scheme goes way past the 1.4 maximum COP that is possibly suggested by Simons.
The ambient heat concentrated via the compressor...
This is something we need to address and get to the bottom of. I've heard it occasionally from wanna-be air inventors, but not as far as I know from standard engineering. (By the way, when I say "wanna-be", I am one, so nobody can take it personal.)
I won't get to the math of it today
, but I'll try to set up the question and say something relevant.
IS COMPRESSION HEAT JUST CONCENTRATED AMBIENT HEAT?
I say no, not from the viewpoint of engineering sources I have seen. I am no great scholar, etc. etc., might be missing an easy point known to all of science, but in my opinion, this is one of those neat-sounding ideas that isn't backed up by reality.
As a thought experiment, if compression heat is really ambient heat, then what is the purpose of the motor running the compressor?
Let's say the motor runs the compressor only for the purpose of getting the air moving and reducing its volume. Are you saying that the squeezing process does not require work or generate heat? That the extraordinary heat generated is not really generated, but existing heat made sensible by being put into a smaller volume so that its temperature goes above baseline? Maybe so, I don't know. There should be a simple way to show the facts, one way or the other, mathematically.
For now I still think that the heat of compression is over and above pre-existing ambient heat. If I'm wrong, then the 1.4 max. COP obtainable from conventional compressor/expander systems is maybe invalid. In which case we'd better all be out in our garages throwing some simple tests together to teach the engineers what's really up with air.
Another point: compress some air. Let it cool in the tank. Then compress this same air some more. It will get hot again. Does the ambient heat=compression heat statement take this into account.
Here is one of the multi-stage bicycle pump patents, 8047818. With multi stage and cooling between the stages, then it helps with less input energy/work since it cools a little between the stages. The work input is more even since you can pump one stage, then the next stage. But, the total amount of work that you must enter is still there, it is just evened out over the stroke, similar to gear ratio or a pully to lift a heavy weight. These bicycle pumps also do work on the upstroke. I am not seeing any extra energy source with these bicycle pumps.
It seems I have a habit of writing too much in one block for you all to want to read. The answers are in there. There is a lot covered, it will take some time for those locked into a different view of things to process. However, it is mostly in a couple places for those that want to know.
The extra energy is NOT in the multistage air pump, we agree! It is in the AIR. Think heat pump as stated previously.
Here is a further explanation of why Neal's set up is a heat pump: A typical heat pump has a fan blowing gobs of air past the coils to extract the heat from it into a working fluid. Neal uses that air as his working fluid instead. Neal just shoves all that gobs of air through his device to extract the heat from it and gets to recycle the pressure while he is at it (through the same Engine as the heat is utilized, at the same time!). A much more efficient heat pump! This is the "secret" that is Neal and Houston, both of the same era. See below for discussion about COP.
My comments in the Forum/Commons/"info to die for" covers Air Theory and poses examples to show what I'm explaining regarding Heat of Compression vs. Ambient Heat Concentration. Then more explanation in another comment. If you cannot invalidate the examples then maybe you ought to give it more thought? I don't want to waste anyone's time so until the examples are shown to be invalid, citing the old literature isn't going to mean anything to me ...and shouldn't to others if they understand what I've provided. Can you come up with a simple example why Heat Concentration is wrong as I have for Heat of compression? As I already stated, it doesn't matter either way as long as I get the same Heat and Pressure to use. Meaning if your Heat of Compression equals the amount of heat in the air, fine, call it what you want. A heat pump moves heat to the Hot side and cold is left over and moved to the cold side. Isn't that concentrating heat? Where does that heat come from? The ambient. Neal just does it a little differently. In a refrigerator (also a heat pump) the room the heat is concentrated into is larger so it doesn't have as much impact. Suppose it was piped through the wall to an insulated closet, would the closet get hotter? Yes, concentrating heat in the air into a smaller space will cause a rise in temperature. Same for compressing the heat already in air into a smaller space. Even though the heat is extracted from the refrigerator box the heat leaked into the box comes from the air. Alternatively obtain the Open System Thermodynamic lecture (video) from Dr. Peter Lindemann at his website (or A & P media) as previously suggested. I think you will understand all this much better afterwards. He points out Houston Patent and Edwards Patent but don't think he quite understood Neal completely or it is harder to show than the others.
My previous comments under this "Neal Tank" forum heading covers where the Energy comes from (the ambient). It also makes the case for what the Neal set up REALLY is. A heat pump. It covers why the Compressor side of Neal's set up is a 15psig high volume compressor feeding a pressure tank.
Mr. Houston's 1930s device is actually similar and operates at similar pressure as Neal's does in Neal's first stage being 15psig. High volume = LOTS of heat gathered in from the ambient. Neal compresses his further to make it usable in his Engine side but they both recycle the Pressure similarly having a common shaft, as does Dr. Thomas Edwards in his ROVAC system some 45-50 years later.
Here is a further hint: Typical heat pump COP is about 3 without recycling the pressure. Typical heat pumps use an expansion valve, instead of regaining the energy from the Pressure like Neal's Expansion Engine or Houston's expansion turbine or Edwards Rotory Vane. Also it is possible to recycle the heat lost to the water jacket in the compressor side of the Neal set up ...and I would be surprised if he didn't. Going to need it in the winter. As you may gather there should be enough Energy to make the thing go. How high is the COP? Seems fairly high and why people should be interested.
I agree air friction becoming heat is not a loss if you can retain that heat to use. Typically there will be some heat losses unless you can use it right away which Neal does quite a good job of.
To be clear, I'm not and never said pressure wave/acoustics is a bad idea. Stated that it would likely make it more efficient. Do we absolutely have to have it right now to make it work? That is what I'm not so sure of either way. Just posing that it might not be.
Tommy suggests that a multi stage air pump is like a gear reduction or a pulley in concept. If so, that would be perfect situation for the high volume effectively 28cyl. 15psig compressor side cranking air through the tank and into 2cyl Engine. Using 15psig X 28cyl vs. 200psig x 2cyl works out nicely (420 vs. 400) with a little to vent as Floyd Neal indicated was happening. Is the multi stage air pump like gear reduction? I'm not exactly sure. This is why I suggested that 3 tanks in series with check valves in front of each be tested to see if it will work. If it takes a properly designed resonator - Equalizer in the tank like Neal has to function properly, no problem here. That would be the next step if the multi stage tank test I suggested failed.
Here is how I see the divide: You are holding an apple and trying to describe it. I see the apple fine but don't see how it can work like that looking at the patent and think the device looks more like an orange.. I am holding an orange and trying to describe it and you are telling me that apples are like so. If you want to understand the orange, read the full extent of the orange as mentioned above, then get back to me about something I missed. If you don't want to understand the orange, no problem, it is here for others who want to. In the end, I'm just posting the info here just in case someone out there wants to know. I cannot help it if others, even learned people of note, haven't looked at it close enough. Go ahead and take that Closer look! (or not, I'm not here to twist arms)
To me, it seems the question from your end is or should be, does the Neal set up operate as a Heat Pump? And is the compressor side of the Neal set up operating at a pressure above 0-psig such as 15psig or not? I previously provided a good case for both, if you read and understand the Patent drawings of the compressor and how heat pumps function. You will find this to be somewhat similar to Peter Lindemann's video on Open System Thermo.
Now for fans of Neal's dual acting 7cyl compressor in common with a dual acting single cylinder Air engine. Let me pose this: He may have doubled the pressure output of the compressor side to 30psig. Using same Volume for the compressor cylinder as the Air Engine cylinder: 30psig X 7cyl X dual action vs. 200psig x 1cyl x dual action. (30 x 7 x 2 vs. 200 x 1 x 2 or 420 vs. 400) giving similar performance as his 28cyl since the pressure is recycled and the heat concentrated similarly with a little extra to vent. Edwards ROVAC device operated at about 30-33psig and provided LOTS of heat which he documented. Peter Lindemann does a fine job of explaining Edwards device and Houston device. It really is the same process done with different style of equipment.
I can't take this any further without repetition which I've already done too much of. To me credentials don't matter, just the logic and its results. This has allowed me to learn from anyone, even a long past shoemaker, mechanics, Scott Robertson, Tommy, and others, thank you all. If it weren't for this website I wouldn't have even known about the Neal design which I find quite efficient. --fn
Post by Uncle Buddy on Nov 26, 2013 21:32:23 GMT -8
Thanks for your comments, which do deserve full consideration. The only thing I'd automatically question about what I read above is where you talk about heat pumps, it occurred to me that a lot of the heat being pumped into the room by a heat pump is compression heat. I've always considered this to be in addition to ambient heat which is sucked in from the environment through the cold exchanger. Again, it sounds like you're saying that compression heat and ambient heat are the same thing. I won't ask you to clarify that since you say you already did, and I'll search for the answer in your previous writings.
This is another question, though, which maybe you can clarify. Does the standard science of today (right or wrong) agree that compression and ambient heat are two different things? And if you know, does Dr Lindemann go along with the idea that they are the same thing, or is it his idea to begin with? I know he's very enthusiastic about both Neal and Houston.
I guess we agree that the old textbooks I use from pre-1930 did not present compression heat as a form of ambient heat concentrated into a smaller space. If so, I've never seen an indication of it. I'll get back to this when I've had time to study your words more deeply.
The other thing I wanted to say, in case it's unclear, is that I don't care how Neal's thing worked. In other words, I'm seeking the truth about Neal and others, not trying to force my square thoughts into a round hole. Yes, I've invested a lot of effort into showing that acoustic processes could be involved. Tommy has come along and showed, in detail, how this could be the case. That doesn't mean that either of us have any particularly emotional investment in proving our own ideas to be correct. In my case, it's not even my own idea, the first clue I had that acoustics was involved came from an engineer named Koff. Well, George Heaton thought the air had to be pulsed into the tank, but he admitted that he wasn't an expert in how he and his unnamed partner accomplished it in 1949.
I am probably a bit impatient regarding some things, sorry for that... I keep thinking that there is little left for me to think or say regarding this device. Apparently not.
There is a new VENTURI concept of the Neal Tank Equalizer. For those interested in that and tired of Air Theory discussions, skip down to item 4 below.
1. From UncleBuddy: I guess we agree that the old textbooks I use from pre-1930 did not present compression heat as a form of ambient heat concentrated into a smaller space... ...it occurred to me that a lot of the heat being pumped into the room by a heat pump is compression heat. I've always considered this to be in addition to ambient heat which is sucked in from the environment through the cold exchanger. Again, it sounds like you're saying that compression heat and ambient heat are the same thing.
fn reply: Yes I agree, the old books don't talk about concentration of the ambient heat in the air. They talk about work of the compression being lost as heat, which I also strongly disagree with. Work of compression is retained as Pressure. To me this is so obvious I can't even imagine how that scientist was able to convince the scientific community at the time to go along with such notions as "all work of compression becomes heat and is lost". However, I did cover the heat lost part fairly well. Which was their experience at the time with big centralized stationary compressor stations for locomotives and trolleys (which is all they had any experience with) not using the heat in the compressor tank right away, like Neal does, and it dissipating through the tank walls to the environment, hence lost. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, scientists convincing others of things that are not so still happens today, especially in areas that get politicized.
I was trying to be diplomatic regarding Heat of Compression. Probably a mistake leading to more possible confusion. I stand by my original statement in the Forum/Commons/Info To Die For section ...which amounts to Deleting the concept of Heat of Compression and replace with Concentration of Ambient Heat. The scientist that came up with the concept of Heat of Compression THOUGHT that was what was happening since Air Got Hotter When Compressed and when he let off the pressure it cooled back down, so then it "must" be due to the compression and voila, the concept of Heat of Compression was born and since he was the scientist of note studying it at the time he must be right. Right? I don't think everyone agreed with him at the time as Peter Lindemann indicated but just said oh well fine and moved on.
It is my guess that the old books and scientists didn't discuss the heat in the ambient air because they didn't know it was there. So that scientist measuring a rise in temperature could only figure that since it was hotter after compression, then compression was the cause of the heat. It may seem silly but then they would have had equations like that thought that occurred to you (adding the ambient heat to the heat of compression). Ambient Heat + Heat of Compress... WHICH WOULD BE FALSE. You cannot have both from their perspective or you'd have twice as much heat as you actually do. It is one or the other.
I choose the ambient heat being concentrated because it is accurate and much easier to measure and show through the combination of Charles and Boyles Laws: P1V1/T1 = P2V2/T2 If I have a room of a certain Volume(V1) full of ambient air, at ambient Pressure(P1), and ambient Temperature(T1)... remember that T is in kelvin here. If I compress that room full of air into a smaller tank of Volume(V2) at a higher Pressure(P2), it will have a higher Temperature(T2), which is easier to see when solving for T2 = T1*P2V2/P1V1 This was the observations of Boyle and Charles in relation to non flowing gases.
Now if that is the observation, then Heat of Compression must also use the same equation to come up with values for those parameters. Hence they are the same thing (even though Heat of Compression as they thought of it doesn't exist).
I probably should Not mention this at all to save even more confusion but to me, if you look out onto a field of air, it has a heat content which a Heat Pump of whichever type Neal, Houston, Edwards, or Refrigerant based working fluid can take advantage of ... then to me an accurate value for [my] fnHeatofCompr would be any and all heat added to the tank air that wasn't in the ambient already as working machinery having internal friction may impart. To get total heat, in that case you would add those together for the heat in the Neal tank minus that lost from the ambient air due to less than ideal insulation in various places allowing transmission of heat to the environment. These parameters are difficult to quantify, with the losses likely to exceed fnHeatofCompr, so easier to ignore them and just use the PV/T equation. Ok a legitimate application of [my] fnHeatofCompr would be where you stick the whole compressor inside the tank. It would add some heat to the equation. Would it surpass heat losses? All depends on how well insulated the tank is and how soon you use that air. Regardless, in comparison fnHeatofCompr is usually a minor side show compared to how much heat is in the air.
2. Note: In a previous post I noted that since the Neal tank has flow going into and out of the tank continually, it would need at least a differential equation to get a decent number for modeling the Temperature in the tank since the Boyles - Charles equation is for fixed volumes, not flow. There may be another way, with mass rate of flow. However, I'm not familiar with that subject.
In summary, heat finds its way into the air via the sun and earth(which is also from the sun originally). So, the Heat is already in the Air. Compressing air doesn't put heat into the air. It just concentrates the heat that is already in the air, causing a rise in Temperature. At the same time it also concentrates the Volume causing a rise in pressure.
3. From UncleBuddy: Does the standard science of today (right or wrong) agree that compression and ambient heat are two different things? And if you know, does Dr Lindemann go along with the idea that they are the same thing, or is it his idea to begin with? I know he's very enthusiastic about both Neal and Houston.
fn reply: I don't know what the science of "today" is. I'm guessing it depends on who you talk to. I read different books from different doctors offering nearly the opposite remedy for the same condition! And like your statement of not caring, just wanting to get to the truth of what is... I feel same about this. From his Open System Thermo video, I would say that Dr. Lindemann is more in agreement with my original post, that Heat of Compression is a bogus concept. I don't recall hearing about Heat of Compression until this website and Dr. Lindemann's video. If you are curious about Heat Pumps and how the energy available is calculated, see if you can find a simple design page for one on the internet somewhere, at a modern manufacture's website. Which should enable you to calculate the BTU output for the given parameters in your locale. If they add in something called Heat of Compression to the figures used for heat in the ambient I would have to eat my words. At this point I don't think that is going to happen. But I do think you need to satisfy yourself on this subject. A Heat Pump should be a good place to do it.
4. From UncleBuddy: ... in case it's unclear, is that I don't care how Neal's thing worked. I'm seeking the truth about Neal and others ...
fn reply: I think I understand that... and that it is a good thing. A good approach for all regarding these types of projects. In order to determine that truth it is a long process. As you know only too well, unfortunately we don't have the whole absolute truth available to look at. We have a Patent drawing we HOPE is of value. I'm guessing that it is. So if a person were to scale up the Neal tank as shown in the drawing. What you don't know is the hole diameter and its location in the Equalizer leading to the first tank chamber. Or how many holes of what size and location. (or if the check valve placement was drawn exactly where it was supposed to be. Or if it is even critical.) From my point of view the rest is mostly well understood. So we are left to speculate, theorize, etc. and test that out as far as we can with logic and reasoning before wasting time building something that isn't going to work.
Something that just came to me, pondering this Equalizer item is this: Is the Equalizer named that due to the fact that the hole in it leading to the first chamber in the tank, Equalizes the pressure between the incoming pulse of air (through the entry check valve to the Equalizer) and the pressure in the tank first chamber? It seems so. And the purpose for the smaller pipe inside the tank? Why does anyone put a smaller tube in a pipe of flowing material? Answer: To introduce the stuff in the smaller tube into the larger pipe via the VENTURI effect. Yet that would look different than the Neal tank, with no wall separating the tank chambers ceasing the flow around the smaller pipe.
BUT what if the smaller pipe feeding the tank is actually the Large Pipe in THIS Venturi and the HOLE in the side wall of the Equalizer IS the Venturi (tube or opening) which occurs when the check valve(s) leading to the higher pressure side of the tank open? I believe venturis were fond of being used in those days. Carburetors rather than fuel injectors, air locomotives used in mining probably had one or more. So if my prior thought about Engine - Compressor Timing is correct (timed to get the most flow through the tank when engine needs air), both check valves of the Equalizer would be Open at the same time AND draws additional air into the high pressure side through that Venturi Hole. That is one special Hole, since it equalizes the pressure in the first tank chamber at the same time! I think I would drill, ream, and polish it really good
To be more specific, the first check valve of the Equalizer would be opening regularly with the pulses from the compressor and when the Engine cylinder inlet opens, both Equalizer check valves would be open.
We had speculated that there may be another check valve on the inlet to the tank. If so what would that mean in this dynamic? Not sure. Could be that it would keep the first Equalizer check valve from wearing out as fast. It may also keep more pressure on the Equalizer. The thing I don't like about it, that would make for such a small volume twixt the tank inlet and the Equalizer inlet, if that matters. More unknowns!
Pressure Wave - Accoustic Design: If Tommy could figure out where a low pressure node is on the Equalizer pipe, that is where I would drill the hole. (if there is a low press. node, keep reading)
Venturi Design: Not sure where to look but there likely is some ratio of larger pipe size to max flow Venturi tube size. So if the hole were big, it would essentially be similar to what I was promoting as a test, a series of tanks with check valves. If the hole is venturi size, then it may draw in some additional air as a pulse of air travels to the higher pressure tank chamber.
Question: If there is a Venturi effect and when the venturi effect is operating, is there a low pressure node along the Equalizer? Or is the whole Equalizer pipe at the same pressure due to both check valves being open?
Answer? Seems to me that a pulse of higher pressure air is going to travel the length of the Equalizer pipe. The low pressure zone is going to be immediately after that pulse. If the Equalizer outlet check valve is closed the Equalizer pipe would just fill to pressure when the Equalizer inlet check valve opens and equalize with the first tank chamber. So when both check valves open and the pressure pulse travels along the Equalizer pipe, the low pressure zone moves along behind it, so there may not be a way to have "stationary low pressure node".
So then where to put the Equalizing - Venturi Hole? Right about where I initially thought I would Not want to put it. Nearer to the the Equalizer inlet. This MAY? allow for initial tank equalization and then more Venturi air to be drawn out of the first tank chamber while the pressure pulse is traveling along to the higher pressure tank chamber. And the next pulse in series compressing that forward.
I can make a case for putting it nearer to the Equalizer outlet also. If the Equalizer outlet check valve is closed and if the pulse of air into the Equalizer pipe, makes that Equalizer pipe into a bicycle pump like device increasing pressure as it compresses the air along its path in the pipe. Air is squealing into the first tank chamber via the equalizer-venturi Hole and when the pressure pulse has arrived at the Equalizer outlet, the Engine cylinder opens enabling the pressure pulse in the Equalizer to open the Equalizer outlet check valve. As that pressure pulse travels past the equalizer-venturi Hole the lower pressure region just behind the pulse along with the balloon rubber band effect in the first tank chamber pushes and draws more air into the higher pressure tank chamber. >>I have my doubts about this scenario which would have to have impeccable timing and acts somewhat like an air injector ...which likely would need an actual air injector to work as such.
Is the Equalizer also a Resonator? Maybe, I don't know. Does it need to be? Maybe, I don't know. I wish I did. Could the first description of a location for the equalizer-venturi hole be a Resonator in operation...? Maybe.
At this point I would be tempted to first test the 3 tank in series with check valves. If that failed, build an investigative style Neal Tank with Equalizer. It would have a couple of features different than Neal's. It would have an Equalizer with a row of drilled and tapped holes with screws in them except one hole. It would have another similar row with slightly larger holes and screws and another row with slightly smaller holes and screws. The tank would have a removable access cover to change settings on the Equalizer holes. All the important node positions that Tommy mentioned or is considering would be located and a hole in the row would be at that point such as the thirds, half, quarter, etc. The screws would not extend in past the Equalizer wall thickness. A tank mounted piston compressor would feed this test bed Tank. See which hole works best. Oh yes it would be made so the Equalizer could be replaced easily if none of the above worked, for different sized holes or if Tommy figured out the specifics.
Of course I could be full of Turkey... Hope everyone had things to be thankful for and a nice Thanksgiving.
Questions do seem beneficial, even of ourselves. Thanks for yours.
More on seeking the truth and not so worried about if one's initial ideas are correct: It is the same with me. I just see what I see and thought it might be helpful to others. For me, in any class I've taken relating to science or engineering, when the teacher skipped the basics to get to what they considered the hard stuff, it made the class difficult. If the basics were covered well, didn't need the teacher for the "hard stuff". This is the reason I've made the effort to cover what I consider to be the basics of the Neal set up (15 psig compressor, Pressure recycling via the common shaft and Engine, Heat Pump similarities, and Air Theory). From there, as you said, the devil is in the details.
5. From UncleBuddy: Well, George Heaton thought the air had to be pulsed into the tank, but he admitted that he wasn't an expert in how he and his unnamed partner accomplished it in 1949.
fn reply: It seems what I am seeing of Neal's set up and George Heaton agree. Piston compressors are pulsing mechanisms. The pulsing comes whether you want it or not. At this point, the the actual air injector method I saw in your drawing elsewhere on the website looks like it could work fine as well. Could even be more efficient than what Neal had? They could be equal. No way to know at the moment. If I had to guess, I would say they may be similar in performance if made correctly. If the Neal Equalizer become elusive, the Air injector method may be the way to go. --fn
Post by Uncle Buddy on Nov 29, 2013 4:29:06 GMT -8
It sounds like you're assuming that the tank has two chambers, I assume the divider is the pipe support member in the center of the tank. Based on the hatch marks, I don't see it that way. I see the tank as one chamber, with the support member providing wave reflection, stressing the second harmonic, but substantially unblocked to flow from one end of the tank to the other.
It also sounds like you're assuming that there's a hole in the equalizer or something communicating somewhere with the "first chamber" which I guess is the left half of the tank.
Do you see these details in the patent drawing, or are you adding them?
It seems my impatience got the better of me. My deep apologies. Some corrections are in order, humbling and embarrassing as they are: 1. Looking closer at the Neal Patent, the Engine side has 2 dual acting cylinders. 2. Looking closer at the crankshaft, the stroke of the Engine pistons is greater than the stroke of the Compressor pistons. 3. Looking closer at the cylinders, the Compressor cylinders are wider than the Engine cylinders. 4. I have no idea if the Volume of a Compressor cylinder and an Engine cylinder are similar. 5. One should stick closely to the units of any equation they use. P1V1 = psig X cu.in. = Lb.in., which is force x distance = work P1V1/T1 = P2V2/T2 where T is in Kelvin. 6. One Revolution of the crankshaft: Compressor has 28 swept cyl. Engine has 4 swept cyl. Ratio is 7 to 1 (same ratio for the 7compressor cyl + 1engine cyl both dual acting model) Compressor P1V1/T1 = 15psig x 28V1/T1 = 420V1/T1 Engine P2V2/T2 = 200psig x 4V2/T2 = 800V2/T2 7. "IF" the Volume of a Compressor cylinder and Engine cylinder are similar, then looking at their P,V,T in 1 crankshaft revolution: T2 = T1*800*V2/420*V1 = T1*1.9 T1 at 50degF = 283.15degK, T2 = 508.7degF T1 at 100degF = 310.93degK, T2 = 603.71degF T2 of the Engine cylinders is well below that of the Internal Combustion Engine as one would expect without exploding fuel air mixture. However, the Temperature is high enough to require the Neal Tank to be of a good metal construction. 8. The 7comp+1eng cyl model would likely operate at the same pressures as the Neal Patent. 9. The Equalizer is still an interesting anomaly that I am guessing will require some experimentation. With 28 pulses per revolution I am still not clear on if the Equalizer outlet is open for all of those pulses or half or for 7 or what. Wild speculation, I would guess 7 since it would seem the system would need to build pressure in order to get past the Equalizer outlet. If so, then for every Equalizer outlet opening there are 4 Equalizer inlet pulses shoving additional Venturi air into the higher pressure side of the Tank. The thing I don't like about this theory is that it doesn't cut in half for the half patent engine (7+1) version. This brings me to think the Equalizer outlet opens at every Equalizer inlet or every other one. At every Equalizer outlet opening would be in line with my original Venturi Hole concept. Or it could be that the number of Engine cylinder openings divided into the number of compressor piston outlet openings is the number of Equalizer outlet openings, 7 for each model unit. Such fun. --fn
Fn, Thanks for the links to Peter L. information on "open source thermodynamics". There is a good utube from 8/2013 where he explains his thoughts. This is a good thing that Peter is getting this concept out to the masses. This concept is not new, and can be found throughout The Uncs site, the difference is that Peter has a polished presentation and is clear in his explanations. Of course, Peter does not get into technical details, which is good, since then he would risk losing the audience. I must agree with Peter's words on the utube interview, and would like to compliment him on his approach to get the wider population thinking and seeing energy in this new/old way. A wider audience could be reached if the complete lecture was available free, since many people, (myself included) will not take the time to order and pay for something, even if it is low priced. Besides, the more this information becomes commonly available, then the more opportunities will open up, and so monetary endeavors will be more available with a wider audience, IMO. I wish that Peter L. would join this forum, maybe he already is here?