Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

User Menu

Custom Search

Author Topic: Bob O'Neil Air Engine  (Read 38833 times)

Motorcoach1

  • elite_member
  • Sr. Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 307
Re: Bob O'Neil Air Engine
« Reply #15 on: January 03, 2013, 11:18:27 PM »
   Been doing some more reaserch here. In the  quote [ combination fluid operated engine and compressor ] at the start of the patent.

 After doing some reaserch from what Tom has mentiond , due to the fact ' fluid operated ' was in the patent. this shed more light on this engines machenical parts and their funtion.

  Lets start the engine in our minds eye........

 First we turn on the start resivore tank [ this is not the eqlizer tank ] . this tank is just for starting the engine. We push the start valve , this turns the airmotor starer at the flywheel. This air motor turns over the engine slowly for say 2 to 4 minutes.

                           Now we ask why so long ?
 
   When we first start the engine it is all in compressor mode, all 10 compounded cylinders an the 2 pistion cylinders. What happens within the next 2 to 4 minutes is somewhat of a metmorphsis.  As the engine is turning over pressure and vacumes are exchanging placeses. As the tempeture differentals build to the desired levels P & V swap sides and the equlizer valve is in full operation at a high occillation [ as Tom said liqfacation or close to it ] . What is now the 10 cylinders that started in compression swap to vaccume pull and the 2 pistons swap to pressure push.
 I belive the center tube connectting the 10 cylinders would be larger to acommadate a high speed venture valve to get the tempatures down even farther than the porting from the cylinders directly.  One other thing happens also is the generator kicks on for the heaters .

Joe1

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 13
Re: Bob O'Neil Air Engine
« Reply #16 on: January 10, 2013, 05:28:13 AM »
   Been doing some more reaserch here. In the  quote [ combination fluid operated engine and compressor ] at the start of the patent.

 After doing some reaserch from what Tom has mentiond , due to the fact ' fluid operated ' was in the patent. this shed more light on this engines machenical parts and their funtion.

The term "fluid" is used in the scientific world to imply fluid dynamics, which is not to imply liquid as in solid-liquid-gas.  It may be that Bob Neal is using the proper scientific use of the word fluid, which implies changing pressures and velocities of a gas.
For an alternate explanation of Bob Neal, see the discussion at:
http://aircaraccess.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=tank&action=display&thread=78
You might find some interesting reading there.

Tom Booth

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 149
    • My Heat Engine Project
Re: Bob O'Neil Air Engine
« Reply #17 on: January 12, 2013, 01:38:54 AM »
The term "fluid" is used in the scientific world to imply fluid dynamics, which is not to imply liquid as in solid-liquid-gas....

That was my understanding when reading the patent. fluid = gas.

What puzzles me is the inlet valves (on top of the compression cylinders). If the purpose was simply to provide an inlet for air to be compressed, why not just use ordinary check valves as elsewhere? Using strong springs would tend to severely restrict air flow into the compression cylinder which would just put an unnecessary strain on the engine to open such valves. Of course, just how strong the springs may have been is guesswork. The patent lacks detailed specifications.

I tend to very much doubt that liquefaction of air could be achieved in one stroke of a piston in such a manner, but without an actual change of state, the strong valve would just put a strain on the compressor to no end, as far as I can see. If it were possible (change of state to a liquid, or at least a vapor mist), once liquified there would be a tendency to remain liquid, at least long enough for the chamber to be evacuated. That would serve some purpose.

Air can and has been liquified using some rather crude apparatus.  Some early air liquefaction machines look almost like an apple press with just a hand cranked wheel to do the work. I think Lind liquified air continuously and in some volume with just a 3 horsepower engine with only water cooling, though the air was recirculated, compressed and cooled repeatedly.

I have some doubts about it but I think the formation of a MIST of partially liquified air might have been possible with such an engine. At any rate, it seems to be suggested by the construction, given the apparently strong valves used, rather than simple check valves.

What got me thinking along these lines is the reportedly "below freezing" temperature of the air in the tank. Was this engine intended for use in some situation where the ambient temperatures would be so cold ? Possibly, but I hardly think so.

One other thing that puzzles me is the report that he made a small model to take to the patent office. Setting it on the desk of the patent examiner. If this thing required water cooling to operate, how would that have been accomplished at the patent office without a source of water for cooling? Tap water from the sink ?

I have been thinking of a means of testing this idea of running an engine by "pulling a vacuum" using a small model, like a Stirling engine.

I may post something on that in the next day or two.

Tom Booth

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 149
    • My Heat Engine Project
Re: Bob O'Neil Air Engine
« Reply #18 on: January 13, 2013, 10:10:28 PM »
I thought it might be interesting to compare the Lind Air Liquefying machine with Neal's Air compressor/engine.

There are several apparent similarities or corresponding components. Of course there is an air inlet, a compressor, a water jacket or cooler, a storage tank for the compressed/liquified air, and Lind's machine has an adjustable throttling valve.

And some differences. Lind's machine did not use mechanical expansion. Rather the air was first compressed and cooled and then allowed to expands through the valve into the tank where it then became liquid. Lind's machine also recirculates, re-compresses and cools any air from the tank that fails to liquify in previous cycles.

Neal's engine combines the various elements in one machine rather than having the components separated, Also, the function was different. Lind's object was simply to liquify air whereas Neal's was power production.

We might imagine Lind's machine utilizing the liquified air from the tank to in turn run an engine to run the compressor.

Anyway, here is an illustration of Lind's Machine:


Tom Booth

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 149
    • My Heat Engine Project
Re: Bob O'Neil Air Engine
« Reply #19 on: January 14, 2013, 06:27:06 PM »
OK here is my idea for a relatively simple way to test this theory that an engine might be able to run (on ambient heat) by "pulling a vacuum". (Along with simple water cooling.)

It may not actually say much about the Neal Compressor or engine itself, but at least it might demonstrate the basic principle.

There are a few different possible variations.

The basic idea though is to use a "throttling valve" to create a partial vacuum for cooling so as to create a temperature difference. The cold produced, theoretically, making it possible for an engine to run on ambient heat.

In this case I'm using a conventional "Low Temperature Differential" Stirling for the sake of simplicity as well as to avoid some of the problems involved with the possibility of building a Neal type engine, besides the cost and complexity of building such an engine, by using a Stirling Engine the cold produced could be used directly, obviating the need for a storage tank and the problem of how to get low pressure air into the tank, the "equalizer" and all that.

Today, a "throttling valve" is less frequently used as it has been found that an expansion turbine is more effective, so there are two versions, one with a valve similar to the one in the Neal Compressor and another where the valve has been replaced by a turbine.

The valve stem is threaded so that the spring tension is adjustable.

Similarly, the turbine has a brake so that resistance can be placed on the turbine. The more pressure applied to the brake, the more the "throttling" effect and the greater the cooling effect. Making these adjustable allows the engine to at least run (hopefully) and then the "throttling" for cooling can be applied gradually to whatever degree the engine might be able to handle.

I'm using a clay pot for the water cooler. It could be filled with ice water, but I think there is a chance that it would provide sufficient cooling with just evaporative cooling.

Also some heat source, like a block of heated metal is shown to get the engine started and provide a temperature differential until some cooling can be effected.

Basically you have a simple LTD Type Stirling Engine sitting on a cooling plate or simple "refrigerator" and, theoretically, if enough cold is produced by "throttling" then the engine could continue running and powering its own cooling system by utilizing ambient heat.

Eventually the heat source (block of metal or "starter") will cool off to ambient temperature or could be removed. The ice would melt and it could be seen if the "throttling" or "pulling a vacuum" provides enough cooling by itself to keep the engine going without these.

 

Tom Booth

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 149
    • My Heat Engine Project
Re: Bob O'Neil Air Engine
« Reply #20 on: January 14, 2013, 06:59:56 PM »
Here is one more version that allows for some additional pre-cooling of the air before being "expanded" by utilizing some of the cold from the air that has already been cooled.


Joe1

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 13
Re: Bob O'Neil Air Engine
« Reply #21 on: January 16, 2013, 04:05:59 AM »
What puzzles me is the inlet valves (on top of the compression cylinders). If the purpose was simply to provide an inlet for air to be compressed, why not just use ordinary check valves as elsewhere? Using strong springs would tend to severely restrict air flow into the compression cylinder which would just put an unnecessary strain on the engine to open such valves. Of course, just how strong the springs may have been is guesswork. The patent lacks detailed specifications.

I certainly agree with your comments about the odd inlet valves at top of compressor cylinders.  Some other possible explanations might be that there is not enough vertical space in the head piece to fit a ball valve as used elsewhere.  Another could be that he could remove the upper inlet valve and run the engine with half the inlet air, using single acting pistons instead of double acting.

Your posts regarding the cooling and stirling references are interesting and worth some study time.  One thought I have is that Neal does mention that the compressor is working against only 15 psi, which to me implies there would be little heat generated in the compressor cylinder.  Over time with the engine running, it seems there could be a trend toward cooling so that the tank air would begin to cool down.  Not necessarily as the main working principle, but as a side effect.

From what little I know of Stirling engines, the temperature differential is directly related to the amount of work that can be produced by the engine.  The LTD stirlings will just barely turn a light crankshaft.  Neal would need a high temp differential to turn his crankshaft.  It does not seem like that requirement would result in an overunity effect, since much energy would be needed to develop the high temp diff in the first place.  But as you have mentioned, possibly he left that part out of his patent.

Thanks so much for the posts and diagrams, which will keep me busy with study.

Tom Booth

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 149
    • My Heat Engine Project
Re: Bob O'Neil Air Engine
« Reply #22 on: January 17, 2013, 07:17:15 PM »
... Stirling engines, the temperature differential is directly related to the amount of work that can be produced by the engine.  The LTD stirlings will just barely turn a light crankshaft.


I think the advantage of the LTD Stirling is that it CAN or is able to run on a very low temperature difference, as little as 5 or 6 degrees Fahrenheit due to the very large surface area, but I don't think it is limited to running on a Low Temperature difference. I suspect with a higher TD it could put out power comparable to other Stirling Engines.

As it is, we don't yet know what the effect of "pulling a vacuum" to create a TD would be. If it were possible for the Neal engine to realize what I guess would be the ideal... actual liquefaction of the air, the amount of liquid air produced from each cylinder would no doubt be miniscule. Perhaps just a tiny droplet or a mist, but there are so many cylinders working together and continuously...

When air actually liquifies, so I've read, it takes on a "spheroidal state" and even in a high temperature environment tends to persist. Surrounding itself with a protective, insulating vapor. This is similar to splashing a drop of water on a very hot skillet. Rather than evaporating from the heat, the drop of water will dance around on the skillet on a layer of water vapor. I can imagine such droplets of liquid air traveling down the common pipe to the "equalizer" then into the tank.

If this were possible, Air, when it expands from a liquid increases in volume 800 times. In other words, a very small amount of liquid air could easily fill an air tank.

The same principle for COOLING air, when taken to extremes will also liquify air.

Most of the early difficulties involved in liquifying gases were due to ignorance regarding critical temperature. It was found that compression, no mater how extreme just didn't work. The "permanent gases" that were considered "impossible" to liquify were found to be relatively easy to liquify when cooled. In other words, cooling is a more effective way to "compress" air than actual compression.

As you point out, the Neal engine was only supposed to use 15 PSI which is practically no compression at all. Logically, it seems to me, extreme cooling would be the only viable substitute for actual compression.

Historically, I think it is also interesting that Neal completed work on his engine and filed the patent not too long AFTER the period of time when Trippler was liquifying air in great quantities and very inexpensively, primarily using cooling rather than high compression, and created quite a stir about the possibility of running engines on liquid air. 

Quote
Neal would need a high temp differential to turn his crankshaft.  It does not seem like that requirement would result in an overunity effect, since much energy would be needed to develop the high temp diff in the first place.  But as you have mentioned, possibly he left that part out of his patent.

A high temperature difference can be arrived at in two different ways. Heating something above ambient, OR cooling it far below ambient. You don't necessarily need to have an availability of an extremely cold sink to get extremely cold temperatures since this can be arrived at by mechanical means. Trippler liquified air in enormous quantities with nothing more than the availability of cold river water for cooling, the rest of the cooling was mechanical, compression and expansion.

Of course, I'm just speculating. If the Neal engine actually worked, including the small model he took to the patent office, I can't help but wonder what happened to these engines.

Recently I've been wondering what happened to Trippler. He seemed poised at one point to bring about a revolution. He seems to have proved that an engine could very well run on liquid air and that the liquid air itself could be produced in quantity at very little cost, then what ?

Quote
Thanks so much for the posts and diagrams, which will keep me busy with study.

One thing about the diagrams. It is a minor point and I was going to fix it but I didn't realize it until after I could no longer edit my posts. But the "vacuum pump" is wrong. That is, the placement of the check valves makes the pump non-functional. I don't see any need to re-upload all of them I'll attach one image with the valve relocated.

Anyway, using the LTD engine would, I think be an advantage as it is not so demanding, as far as temperature difference requirements. But it could be made to operate on the same principle which if taken to extreme might be used to run a larger engine, like the Neal engine.

In other words, the same principle used to run the LTD engine on slightly cooled air could theoretically also run the Neal engine if the cooling were taken to the point of liquefaction.  I very much doubt it would work otherwise. That is, without an actual change of state the air would just be expanded in the cylinder and then compressed back down before it left the chamber. As far as I can figure out, that would serve no purpose. But if even a very small quantity of the air actually liquified and condensed into the "spheroidal state" then it could accumulate and be moved into the tank. The change of state, I think, would be very important in the Neal engine for it to function, but a change of state would not be required with the LTD engine, though the same principle is involved.

In other words, if the LTD engine could function as illustrated then I think that this would lend some credence to the idea that this is how the Neal engine may have functioned in principle as the method used for cooling is the same as that used in gas liquefaction. It would just be a mater or taking it a step further. A greater degree of cooling using the same or similar method.

Joe1

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 13
Re: Bob O'Neil Air Engine
« Reply #23 on: January 18, 2013, 08:14:16 PM »
This is a very interesting discussion.  Do you have any links where I could learn about Trippler?  Tried the Google patent inventor search, but nothing there.  Many Thanks.  Are there any patents associated with Trippler?  Do you have a first name, or did he publish any papers or descriptions?

When you refer to the spheroidal shape, sounds like that would be similar to supersaturated water.

Joe1

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 13
Re: Bob O'Neil Air Engine
« Reply #24 on: January 18, 2013, 10:50:14 PM »

AlanA

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 117
Re: Bob O'Neil Air Engine
« Reply #25 on: January 20, 2013, 11:02:53 AM »
Thanks for the very interesting discussion.
I found the patents of Charles E. Tripler very easy (google patent search).
There are various patents from Tripler. Two are from 1900:
- US 652.058, Liquefier for atmospheric air
- US 652.304, Liquid-Air generator.
I also found a very remarkable detail about Tripler. In 1901 it seems that he has invented a car that was propulsed by liquefied air. But I have not found further details about it :((

But could it be really efficient to liquefy air? I think there must be a lot of energy to get this kind of air. Tripler compressed the air with 2500 pound.


Tom Booth

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 149
    • My Heat Engine Project
Re: Bob O'Neil Air Engine
« Reply #26 on: January 23, 2013, 12:36:58 AM »
I also found a very remarkable detail about Tripler. In 1901 it seems that he has invented a car that was propulsed by liquefied air. But I have not found further details about it :((

But could it be really efficient to liquefy air? I think there must be a lot of energy to get this kind of air. Tripler compressed the air with 2500 pound.

There are a lot of articles from the NY Times Newspaper available on Google about Tripler and his Liquid Air Company. I haven't read all of them but what I've gathered so far he had plans of manufacturing all kinds of engines to run on Liquid air.

I don't think there is any doubt that he was making huge quantities and shipping it all over the country.

He claimed, according to that article, to be able to use liquid air to run his compressors to make more liquid air. That he got 10 gallons of liquid air out of his liquifier for every 3 gallons he used to run the machine.

I think that this was possible because his plant was located on a river into which a lot of heat could be dumped for free. He compressed the air which got it hot then cooled it with river water then let it expand so it got extremely cold then used the very cold air that resulted to pre-cool more compressed air so that the temperature kept dropping. The point to be noted is that he was getting the cold river water for free. It would not be possible to do this with an engine running in a car for example as you can't travel around in your car with a river.

It looks like there was a lot of controversy. Several US senators joined the company. Then accusations of fraud. Scientists were writing articles denouncing his claims, then some scandal involving the disappearance of investors money.

The company was apparently going strong shipping barrels of liquid air all over the continent in 1900 - 1901. By 1902 the company collapsed in bankruptcy. There was apparently some kind of official inquiry into the collapse. What the conclusion, if any, I haven't found out. He died just a few years later in 1905.

Tom Booth

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 149
    • My Heat Engine Project
Re: Bob O'Neil Air Engine
« Reply #27 on: January 25, 2013, 04:38:30 AM »
I'm not really sure if this makes sense or not or if it is even possible or effective but I had another idea about the possible purpose of the "throttling valve" that would not necessitate actual liquefaction of the air but would still be useful.

Perhaps the purpose of expanding the air in the cylinder for cooling (if that was in fact the purpose) was not so much to cool the air itself or liquify it, as I think in such a process, very little air would actually be drawn in, but to pre-cool the cylinder itself.

The same cylinders are used for expansion/cooling and compression.

Perhaps the idea was to fist expand some air by  "throttling" or the "Joule - Thompson Effect" in the cylinder to chill the cylinder walls and piston before introducing the actual air to be compressed into the same cylinder.

I think this could explain just about everything. Why the same cylinder does double duty. Why the piston is unusually thin (as pistons go), so the cold produced on one side (top) would also chill the other side (bottom). Why the different types of valves are used instead of all regular check valves.

Why expand and cool such a small amount of air in the cylinder and then just expel it adding a strain on the engine to no apparent purpose: It serves the purpose of pre-chilling the cylinder before doing the actual compression of a much larger volume of air in the same cylinder.

As long as the air was substantially colder than ambient. (The air already in the tank would be warming up to ambient) I think the idea that the "equalizer" served as a kind of "Thermal Pump" would still be valid.

Very cold dense air enters the equalizer through the first check valve. Once between the two valves in the equalizer it begins to warm up and build up pressure forcing itself through the second check valve and into the tank at higher pressure.

So the compression would be a two stage process. First cooling by Joule-Thompson expansion or throttling to cool the piston and cylinder. Second, introducing air into the same cylinder for compression after the cylinder has already been pre-cooled by stage 1.

The small amount of air used for expansion and cooling, once it has done its job of pre-cooling the cylinder, is then largely incidental and is just expelled into the pipes along with the rest of the compressed air.

I'm intentionally neglecting the cooling due to the water circulating around the compression cylinders to avoid confusions, but this would provide an initially cool environment more or less insulating the cylinders from the surrounding ambient heat to help make the cooling by expansion most effective.


Tom Booth

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 149
    • My Heat Engine Project
Re: Bob O'Neil Air Engine
« Reply #28 on: January 26, 2013, 07:06:32 AM »
OK, I'm wondering if anyone here is good at calculating or figuring out mathematically the whole "ideal gas law" Pv=nrt thing, because I'm not, but I know there are formulas for figuring this sort of thing out.

The air being drawn in by the engine through the valve is initially plain old fresh air at ambient temperature and atmospheric pressure.

There are three possible cooling effects going on.

The valve, depending on how strong the spring is, restricts the amount of air that can be admitted in a given time.

Say the cylinder holds 1 liter (normally by volume). But less than 1 liter of air gets through the valve. Say 1/2 liter or "normal" atmospheric air at 60 degrees F.

So the 1/2 liter is mechanically expanded to twice its volume.

At the same time the air is entering an environment that is, lets say 20 degrees cooler than ambient (the cylinders are water cooled) So there is an inital drop in temperature due to heat being drawn off into the water jacket. At the same time the 1/2 liter of air that gets past the valve is expanded to twice its initial volume.

There is also Joule Thompson "Throttling" as an additional source of cooling but by itself, without a change in volume and environmental temperature is, I think, rather negligible.

Lets just say X amount of gas at 60 degrees Fahrenheit is mechanically expanded in a cylinder to twice the volume.

In other words. If the valve were fully open then 1 full liter of gas would be drawn in by the piston. But the valve is held closed by a strong spring (apparently) so only 1/2 that much air gets into the cylinder but it is mechanically forced to expand to the full 1 liter that the cylinder can hold. It is as=if any amount of air was expanded to twice its volume. (could actually be 1 and 1/2 its volume or twice or three times its volume depending on how tightly closed the valve is.)

This by itself should be fairly easy to calculate with the standard "Ideal Gas Law" formulas. Right ?

So anyway, I've been doing some figuring using some of the Online Calculators available just plugging in values such as might be suggested by the above ramblings - but I am coming up with temperatures that are like hundreds of degrees below zero. I'm wondering if this is realistic or if I'm just not using the calculator right.

Maybe someone knowledgeable in this area can help.

I think most of the relevant values are known or could be approximated.

How much air the cylinders could normally hold, average ambient temperature, etc. This should basically plug right in to standard formulas like pv=nrt.

We could get a rough idea how much cooling might be possible by mechanical expansion alone by 1 stroke of the piston and go from there.

So far it's looking to me like the temperature drop due to mechanical expansion alone could be quite extreme but I'm no expert.

 

Motorcoach1

  • elite_member
  • Sr. Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 307
Re: Bob O'Neil Air Engine
« Reply #29 on: January 26, 2013, 08:13:31 PM »
Tom; I have a copy of Audels E&M guide2 book, printed in 1921. Look up Uni-flow engines by Johann Stumpf of Berlin Germany. There are charts of working pressures , althoe these are steam related-  this engine was used as a compressed air unit in mineing operations.