Green steam engine

[biobill]

  Has anybody seen this crazy thing?

http://www.greensteamengine.com/

Make sure you see the running demo. 


        Bill

[mobile_bob]

Biobill:

don't let jack belk see it,,

i dont know how much power the little guy will make or how efficient it is,, but it sure looks cool

coolfactor makes up for some efficiency

and if it is fairly efficient,,, then wow

neat

bob g

[rcavictim]

Very cool!  The two cylinder version shown operating looks strange in the sense that a three cylinder version ought to be perfect.

[adhall]

On the down side, the whole affair looks awfully spindly. I am thinking that this would take a lot of "beefing up" before it would hold together for the long run.

Another concern is the spherical joints at the head end of the cylinders. I wonder how you would keep these from leaking in the long run.

It would be nice to see some hard data to support the efficiency claim, too. I am inclined to doubt that claim because the builder didn't even insulate the cylinder walls and that would be an important first step towards improving the efficiency of any steam engine.

On the other hand, it is definitely cool. No doubt about that.

Best regards,
Andy Hall

[phaedrus]

It seems to be a descendant of the swash-plate engines experimented with in Europe in the 1930’s – those were aircraft engine prototypes which were looking for high power density and low frontal area. The gas turbine eclipsed those engines and they became a dead-end.  The efficiency cannot be very high because it is a counterflow design. If it were a uniflow design it would be pretty efficient – but uniflows use pretty high steam pressure (also necessary for efficient operation) fairly exotic valves and exhaust to vacuum , all adding expense and complexity.

Seems to me that it, in the triple configuration, might be a good engine to operate on solar-thermal steam, which is generally low pressure and pretty wet. In that application efficiency is not terribly vital – as the power input is free. It is indeed a neat engine!

[Tom]

Looks like an "Air Hog" model air plane engine to me.

[DaveW]

  Strange, it looks like a "futuristic" engine engine design from a B grade '30s science fiction movie.  Maybe that was where I saw something like this, it looks weirdly familiar.

[B K Lahey]

I agree with most of the comments, but wouldn't it be great if it WORKS!!
BK

[Andre Blanchard]

I agree with most of the comments, but wouldn't it be great if it WORKS!!
BK

The thing with steam is this.
The engine is easy, cookbook design stuff will get you a very good engine.
But the hard part is the heart of the machine and that is the boiler.

Edit:
Actually there is nothing hard about building a very good boiler, it's just expensive.

[B K Lahey]

Boiler shouldn't be real critical at the low PSI quoted, or am I missing something???
BK

[adhall]

BK:

The conventional wisdom about steam engines is that low steam pressure equates to low power and also low effiiciency, which once again calls into the question the claims made on the website. And even at 20 PSI, a boiler with any significant volume of water in it can be a hazard if not properly constructed, tested, protected, and maintained. (Consider the results of a pressure cooker explosion.)

I have to agree with Andre that the boiler is a real sticking point when it comes to steam power. In my mind, another sticking point for small engines is efficiency. I don't remember exact numbers, but I seem to recall that even "modern" steam locomotives had difficulty reaching system efficiency levels above 10% and it get worse as the engines get smaller and the steam pressures drop.

Don't get me wrong, I love steam engines and have long wanted to own (and operate) one, but I think they have a lot of disadvantages compared to internal combustion engines when it comes to small systems.

Best regards,
Andy Hall

[Dail R H]

   "In my humble opinion" while this may very well be a novel toy,I don't believe it is likely to produce much usable power. Why ?
   1. Low preassure= low power unless you have really big cylinders,which it doesn't.
   2.Bad geometry. Very small mechanical advantage or leverage in that wobblycrank plate thingy.
   3. High coeficient of friction in the flexible shaft =large parasitic load,high wear/maintainance.
   4.No way to maintain valve accuracythat I coud see.
   5.Low torque,back to bad geometry
   Having said all that,I hope I'm wrong on all counts,because in the future,we will need all the sources of power we can find,and steam has shown in the past to be reliable ,safe,and efficient. Time will tell.

[B K Lahey]

Be great if you could incorperate it with a solar panel!!
BK