Puppeteer

Author Topic: Columbia University Study On Listeroids  (Read 8435 times)

Geno

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 295
    • View Profile
Columbia University Study On Listeroids
« on: May 21, 2006, 04:41:08 PM »
There is a new link and page on the utterpower.com website which should be of great interest to all of us. This is the exact type of exposure and testing that Listeroids need if they are ever to be recognized as efficient, economical and clean sources of power to the people who make the BIG decisions on their future. A Columbia University study has the validity to put my back yard, mad scientist experiments to shame.
http://www.utterpower.com/modi.htm
http://www.me.columbia.edu/me3410/spring06/group01/index.html
I've only looked it over briefly so far.

I registered a new domain name this morning (http://www.genedevera.com )  and will be putting lots of information there including a description of, and a link to the project.

Anyone who can promote and spread information on this project should. If you have a website where you can put a link to and description of the project, even better.

http://listerengine.com/  certainly gets a lot more, and the right kind of traffic than mine does. Perhaps a link to and brief description of the project could help us all. The home page sure would be nice.  ;)

Thanks, Geno
« Last Edit: May 21, 2006, 04:46:22 PM by Geno »

mobile_bob

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2940
    • View Profile
Re: Columbia University Study On Listeroids
« Reply #1 on: May 21, 2006, 05:18:19 PM »
i came across the link on george's site yesterday, and i agree the word needs to be spread.

nice to see some studies being done with these engines, perhaps this will prove out to the EPA that these engines aren't the
route of all evil.

bob g
otherpower.com, microcogen.info, practicalmachinist.com
(useful forums), utterpower.com for all sorts of diy info

Halfnuts

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 259
    • View Profile
Re: Columbia University Study On Listeroids
« Reply #2 on: May 22, 2006, 12:49:13 AM »
The only disappointment in their study is that the efficiency of the truck-type alternators is so low.  Dragged the system efficiency down to 11% which is pretty wretched.  But hats off to the students for picking an interesting and relevant topic for their project. 

Now, team them up with a couple chemical engineers to study/optimize the fuel handling, some aggies to dial in the best conditions for maximizing yield, a few social science types to figure out ways to keep the natives from chopping down the bushes for firewood, and maybe an Econ student or two to scope out the viability from the bean counter's perspective and you have the makings of a movement!

Halfnuts

mobile_bob

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2940
    • View Profile
Re: Columbia University Study On Listeroids
« Reply #3 on: May 22, 2006, 01:09:27 AM »
i would agree with you on the use of the truck alternators,

i am wondering why they saw fit to gear them up so fast?

perhaps the choice of a different automotive alternator, or truck alternator that could generate large currents and far less rpm.

for instance the leece neville/prestolite load handler series such as the 160 amp units, produce in the neighborhood of 120 amps at around 1800 to 2000 rpm would have given the lister a better mechanical advantage and likely been far more efficient.

i would have to reread there report but in my recollection weren't they geared to around 10:1 step up? at that level there is a serious load for a 6/1 to handle. a 3:1 step up with a better suited alternator would give them much better efficiency and alot more useable power.

its a good step in the right direction though mainly because of the coverage they will receive. Lets face it the powers that be pay more attention to university study results than they do to us DIY's.

That might not be the case if we were to set up testing and reporting following accepted scientific procedure and documented the results.

problem is we as individuals don't have the time (typically) to do all the testing in the proper format and have an avenue to publish the results.

so i guess we should feel lucky to have these folks doing what they have done, maybe they would continue the study and take some input or idea's from DIY's and further refine their results.

bob g
otherpower.com, microcogen.info, practicalmachinist.com
(useful forums), utterpower.com for all sorts of diy info

Halfnuts

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 259
    • View Profile
Re: Columbia University Study On Listeroids
« Reply #4 on: May 22, 2006, 03:36:28 PM »
Bob, it appears the objective wasn't so much to devise an optimal system, but only one to demonstrate the feasibility of the use of Jatropha oil to power such an engine.  The scope of the project was actually rather narrow which leaves room for further innovation by the team's successors.  That is a wonderful testimony to the usefulness of having such an engine around in a university for students to experiment on.  And considering the price of your garden-variety 'roid, it's a bargain, too.

The summary indicated the engine would be used for pumping water, generating electricity and "...agricultural and water processing..."  So I gather the use of the truck alternators was a sort of quick and dirty way to apply a measurable load to the engine.  I'm sure, were the objective to provide an EFFICIENT source of electrical power some collaboration with electircal engineering students would be an option.  Seeing the possibilities here makes me (almost) want to get back into teaching again!

Halfnuts

Doug

  • Guest
Re: Columbia University Study On Listeroids
« Reply #5 on: May 22, 2006, 04:13:55 PM »
Auto Alternators suck....

They don't have enough Iron in them and the thickness of the iron used is generaly too much....

Too many poles, and a high leakage flux means the "magnetics" of the machine aren't good.....

They're cheap with the copper. The reality of the auto alternator is its designed to produce on the order of 10-20 amps for a car, and maybe peak every now and then to charge a dead battery thats it....
Now some will come back at me and say "but they build big ones too for trucks" and yes they do but the reality is they are not designed to run at high currents and or be spun at speeds exceeding 2000 rpm.

Doug

mobile_bob

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2940
    • View Profile
Re: Columbia University Study On Listeroids
« Reply #6 on: May 22, 2006, 04:58:46 PM »
Doug:
"and yes they do but the reality is they are not designed to run at high currents and or be spun at speeds exceeding 2000 rpm."


i wouldn't be so fast to condemn all truck alternators, there are good and bad in them just as there is in anything.


check out the following link from prestolite, these alternators are designed to run at peak 6000 rpm and deliver serious chargeing power
even at engine idle. (you have to consider the 3 to 1 step up common on heavy trucks)

http://www.prestolite.com/pgs_products/specs.php?item_detail_id=24319&item_series_id=94&refresh=1148312166

are they efficient, i don't know yet, but i would expect them to be higher in overall efficiency than say an ST head generating ac to feed a charger that charges a battery.

if you really want to see some interesting offerings in heavy alternators, check out electodyne
the electrodyne units address all your concerns, thin iron, max copper, low flux leakage, high efficiency etc.
http://www.electrodyne.com/models.html

clearly i don't think we can write off all automotive alternators in broad sweep, sure most are built at a price point and are designed to put out low currents continuously, but there are those that are designed to deliver high amperage all day long.

even modern car alternators are delivering more continuous amperage than they did a few years ago, with electric fuel pumps, high energy ignition, fuel injection and huge stereo systems, 40 or 50 amps continuous has become the norm.

on heavy trucks the loading can be much higher on a continuous basis, so many manufactures have stepped up and are building high output low rpm units, some probably aren't as efficient as others, only testing will prove one out over the other i suppose.

bob g
otherpower.com, microcogen.info, practicalmachinist.com
(useful forums), utterpower.com for all sorts of diy info

Doug

  • Guest
Re: Columbia University Study On Listeroids
« Reply #7 on: May 22, 2006, 08:00:31 PM »
Too each his own Bob:
Personaly I think its a bad choice to use one for a battery charger, they're just not designed to run full at full power for extended periods, they have a duty cycle and are intended to maintain an electrical system not recharge dead batteries or run heavy loads.

Doug

I have seen some good ones...
I used to use a large 150 Leece Nevile at the camp to charge batteris ( or rather my grand father built the set up ) for years but it wasn't cost effective with fuel and repairs ( burned up rotors and bridges )
« Last Edit: May 22, 2006, 08:03:20 PM by Doug »

GerryH

  • Guest
Re: Columbia University Study On Listeroids
« Reply #8 on: May 22, 2006, 08:47:37 PM »
My take on the 'Steroids project was to make something a person in the 3rd world could cobble up out of stuff scrounged or bootlegged. They also needed to provide load to the engine to calculate kw between fuel.
I doubt if there was a DIY in the room. so they used of the shelf stuff as much as they could. To demonstrate the power differences in alternate fuels -- it was adequate, but not efficient.
If we wanted to be real efficent in our own units, we need to find or build a 12 pole 600 rpm generator and drive it 1:1

mobile_bob

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2940
    • View Profile
Re: Columbia University Study On Listeroids
« Reply #9 on: May 23, 2006, 02:34:06 AM »
Doug:

points well taken, but i would like to impress the difference between the older leece nevilles and the new load handler series that is built on the motorola frame, which is much heavier and better designed than the leece neville units.

also the electrodyne units are built hell for stout, and have very thin laminations, and very close tolerances (air gap)

the problem as i see it with using off the shelf alternators from automotive applications one has to remember these are units designed to be all things to all people so to speak, sort of like jack of all trades and master of none.

each of these units has a sweet spot where it operates at max efficiency, so careful application of ratio's is of paramount importance if one is to get a respectable amount of power out for the power put in. The problem is many manufactures do not publish output curves and those that do should be adhered to or applied correctly. Basically why spin the shit out of an alternator if it is only going to produce a small return in additional power but consume much more in the process.

also one has to consider that automotive alternators are designed to run over a very wide operating rpm range, this makes design of peak efficiency a comprimise at best.

i would wager that if one was to study the output curves and then gear the engine to run the alternator at a fixed and predetermined rpm he could get a much higher efficiency. I personally believe that a quality unit like the prestolite load handler or one of the electrodyne alternators would be fairly efficient and very long lived.

another point worth considering is the fact that most folks charging batteries realize that they should never let their batteries get to the point that they are severely discharged. If not they will be spending alot of money on new batteries and charging systems reqardless of type.

a couple of years back i picked up an electrodyne core alternator to tear down and inspect, these units for off grid charging in my opinion will out last any other type of charging system. The design is a no comprimise unbelievable setup. They are designed to deliver the rated output day in and day out for thousands of hours without having to replace brushes, brgs or anything else. They offer from 12volt at up to 450 amps to 64 volt at 100 amps. short of a lightening strike or some other catastophic calamity they have exceptionally long lives. but consider also they too have a sweet spot where they will produce rated power at peak efficiency. At least their engineering dept is forthcoming with technical info and are very helpful in design considerations. down side they are expensive units.

don't take me wrong Doug i am not trying to gain converts, i am just stating for the record that alot of folks have less than satisfactory results based on the use of 1. wrong pulley ratios, and 2. the use of the factory regulator which is not optimised to efficiently charge deep cycle batteries.

an analogy would be the use of a 4 cylinder gas engine to pull a one ton truck, if geared correctly it can move the load and while it may take longer will do the job. Geared wrong and the result is dreadful and totally unacceptable.

Garry H:

you are spot on, we do need a 600 rpm alternator, but sadly that would likely have to be purpose built and likely expensive.
an alternative might be a 1200 rpm 3 phase motor with neo mag inset on the rotor, each phase and coil set seperated and rectified then you would have a serious charger that would be very efficient. you could probably charge quite well at 12 or 24 volt with such an alternator running 1:1 from a lister.

bob g



otherpower.com, microcogen.info, practicalmachinist.com
(useful forums), utterpower.com for all sorts of diy info

kpgv

  • Guest
Re: Columbia University Study On Listeroids
« Reply #10 on: May 24, 2006, 02:35:57 AM »
There is a lot of interesting info on this. I wish they had gone into a little more detail on the "tach" setup, and other nuts and bolts, and source info. Maybe in the future...
Just a small thing, but if you go to "Operation Manual" and scroll down to "III. Starting", there is a photo of the starter crank on the engine, and the "handle" is on ?backward? (curve in toward flywheel)?. Mine is the same as all the others shown in photos on copper-mine, and the CD, etc. which is opposite of this.
Seems that doing it that way could be a little less safe than the curve out (arm and/or sleeve caught?).
Since they start with a two person team, it can't be to ease the reach for the compression release lever... ???

KevinĀ 

Doug

  • Guest
Re: Columbia University Study On Listeroids
« Reply #11 on: May 24, 2006, 02:43:52 AM »
Hey Bob if the Electrodyne units are built with good thin laminations, and very close air gap then I'm a convert.

I've never seen the inside of one but thats how a good machine needs to be made.

Doug

mobile_bob

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2940
    • View Profile
Re: Columbia University Study On Listeroids
« Reply #12 on: May 24, 2006, 03:05:12 AM »
Doug:

i wish i would have kept the core electrodyne i had, but it got thrown out.

it was a 32 volt @140 amp if i remember,

if i still had it i would take a bunch of pictures and post them.

i would have to say it was the most fascinating piece of equipment i have ever seen. the body was cast iron or steel, it had one long roller brg with teflon seals and a grease/oil well to keep it lube for what would seem forever.

with the cast housing design and the perfectly machined and aligned rotor assy make for an extremely close air gap, something all other automotive alternators lack because of production costs i am sure.

i asked my local rebuilder if he had a core, he doesnt and hasnt seen many of them in recent years, but i have a line on another shop that might.

if i can find one, i will get it and take some pics of the innards.

bob g
otherpower.com, microcogen.info, practicalmachinist.com
(useful forums), utterpower.com for all sorts of diy info

Doug

  • Guest
Re: Columbia University Study On Listeroids
« Reply #13 on: May 25, 2006, 06:25:18 PM »
Yes I would be inerested in seeing that.

Doug

rgroves

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 141
    • View Profile
    • Flint Hills Diesel
Re: Columbia University Study On Listeroids
« Reply #14 on: May 26, 2006, 02:43:59 AM »
Yes I would be inerested in seeing that.

Doug

Got me intrigued too. 
http://www.electrodyne.com/operation.html

rg
A country boy can survive - Hank Williams Jr.