Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy
Mechanical free energy devices => mechanic => Topic started by: aussiebattler on March 18, 2018, 09:34:56 PM
-
To date experimenters may have been looking in the wrong direction when trying to replicate the Clem motor. Perhaps it is expedient to consider what Richard Clem saw when he watched the tar pump continue after the power to it was turned off. He would have noticed of course that the revolutions continued only up to the time that the temperature of the tar reduced to a certain level. Most likelyt he would have concluded that the giving up of heat energy in the device was responsible for the conversion to rotational energy.
No doubt his thoughts would then consider how such a phenomenon could be used as the basis for a usable power source. Presumably he would have thought that a "free" heat source would be ambient temperature. The rest is history.
Hopefully i will get to proving this very soon.
Stay tuned
-
If you need any help, let me know. I have years in building different versions that didn't work.
-
Thanks for your interest in this Tommy. Yes I have seen some of your efforts. I think the answer is based on two factors - the use of a closed system where pressures increase and decrease and the use of the heat exchanger to restore the temperature depleted fluid back to ambient. I am making a small unit using a 3d printer but am having printer problems at the moment after completing about 80%. :( I could send you further details if interested
-
Hi
May I suggest that you study these two parents
US3975914
US4037415
You can just google them to get them.
I suspect that these are the parents of Clem engine worded to discuss the principle.
I may not be accurate but studying two parents in your area of interest will cost you only the time for study. It may help you.
I do not research in this line and so my understanding may not be correct. If that is so I apologise for the trouble. Thank you.
-
Thank you NR. Rather I think you will find that the work of Tesla and Schauberger was prominent in the Clem engine.
-
Thanks for your interest in this Tommy. Yes I have seen some of your efforts. I think the answer is based on two factors - the use of a closed system where pressures increase and decrease and the use of the heat exchanger to restore the temperature depleted fluid back to ambient. I am making a small unit using a 3d printer but am having printer problems at the moment after completing about 80%. :( I could send you further details if interested
If your prototype is less than 18x18x17cm in size, I can print it - but then you must tell me what to do with it when it's finished ;D
Vidar
-
Thanks for your interset LQ. I have my printer going now. When I prove this I will send you files so you make one yourself if you want.
Aussie
-
Perhaps it would be convenient for free energy enthusiasts to copy the following document:
https://overunity.com/18905/delta-t-energy-technology-the-secret-of-the-clem-motor/dlattach/attach/182404/
-
More info coming to my fb page
-
Hi,
So what makes you think this was a real Clem Engine design?
Where is the increase pressure coming from?
What type of fluids are you using?
What is the thrust,rpm and the size of the rotor to generate power?
I have over 10 years building these designs, this was one of them that never worked, based on keelynet!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7bpUgws1V4&t=250s
Tom
-
Tommy
Had you considered where the enrgy came from and how to utilise it?
-
Hi aussiebattler,
After years of testing all kinds of designs, I fully understand how the Clem engine would have to work.
Fact 1) Using cooking oil.
Fact 2) Heat exchanger is needed to keep the temperature around 300deg to prevent over heating.
Fact 3) Hydraulic pump was used to get high pressure fluid moving.
Fact 4) A combustion chamber was added to increase pressure as the cooking oil exploded in the system known as a diesel effect.
Fact 5) Cavitation bubbles or air was added to the fuel.
In other words, this was a diesel (cooking oil) fluid turbine engine. Just like a diesel engine injects fuel into a high compression/heat chamber, it reacts with air.
The thrust must have been in the thousands of psi to get 350hp.
Tom
-
Hi aussiebattler,
After years of testing all kinds of designs, I fully understand how the Clem engine would have to work.
Fact 1) Using cooking oil.
Fact 2) Heat exchanger is needed to keep the temperature around 300deg to prevent over heating.
Fact 3) Hydraulic pump was used to get high pressure fluid moving.
Fact 4) A combustion chamber was added to increase pressure as the cooking oil exploded in the system known as a diesel effect.
Fact 5) Cavitation bubbles or air was added to the fuel.
In other words, this was a diesel (cooking oil) fluid turbine engine. Just like a diesel engine injects fuel into a high compression/heat chamber, it reacts with air.
The thrust must have been in the thousands of psi to get 350hp.
Tom
Notwithstanding your operating concept Tommey where do you get the energy to supply so much output and cause so much heat as well? Are you suggesting that the cooking oil is fuel (as this was against Clem's concept of no oil being used up)
-
Hi aussiebattler,
Yes, it was the most efficient way to run a engine using cooking oil.
You can't compare it to a IC engine, due to the fact having a combustion 3000+psi pushing the single piston downward to fill the displacement beyond the volume of one single stroke.
If you have fluid coming out of a orifice of 1" diameter ID at 3000 psi, this is not air but fluid that deals with water rocket math. The total force is 1.57*psi*d*d= 4710lb of thrust.
The velocity is just as important \/(32+32*(3000psi*0.434) = 204ft/sec.
for a rotor size of 24"*pi=6.28ft, 204/6.28 * 60 = 1949 rpm's.
Lets say if this was a constant the hp = 1949rpm's*4710lb thrust/5252=1747hp per-minute...
Just show how powerful 3000 psi can be. This moved a lot of fluid to generate 350hp...
I have discover instead of using rim jets, you can modified the system to rotate a hydraulic rotary vane motor.
Tom
-
But Tom
Developing a different type of diesel engine is not replicating the Clem
AB
-
If you study all the claims of how the Clem Engine worked, no body has ever made a working prototype.
But if you look at physics of whats really going on with cooking oil, high pressure and heat. It is a type of a diesel engine using cooking oil.
You do know a diesel engine will run on cooking oil don't you?
This is how if it was real would have to work in the real world.
The phase change is were the power comes from, not the rotating fluids!
Tom
-
Tommy
Basic physics tells us that as pressure of a liquid increases so does it's temperature. Now if you have liquid flowing in tapering chanels while revolving at high speed you will get some very high pressure at the extremities. If you then release that liquid through small orifices you are setting up the "venturi effect" where the liquid will release energy giving up temperature in the process . The energy loss can then be restored by absorbing heat from the atmosphere -even on cold days . The result is no cost of fuel for 24/7 /365 and
suitable for all kinds of applications.
Do you think the oil companies or the wind and solar boys like this one?
AB
-
Hi AB,
Again, those who believe they know how the Clem engine worked, is not based on building any prototype as a example; but a theory.
So going back and forth is not going any where, let me ask you how the Clem engine worked?
What experiments do you have to back up your theories?
Tom
-
Hi,
maybe you find this interessting:
THE CLEM ENGINE AND ITS MICRO-DIESELING PHENOMENON
https://www.academia.edu/81195428/THE_CLEM_ENGINE_PART_1
my small prototype, still under construction
-
Good question Tom In fact I am right at the end near to having an answer for you . Will keep you informed as perhaps you will too
Cheers
AB
-
I think your on the right track aussiebattler. Clem motor or the motor he based his patent off of mentions nothing of burning any such oil or references to any diesel motor. I have studied it myself and almost built it but no time now.
Reminds me of the 40K Hydro blaster I used when I was younger scooting me across the catwalk when my boots had oil on them or ice in the walkway. So much power and pressure that I had to tie myself to it to keep from sliding. Of course the safely man shit a brick when he seen me. ;D
-
If you study all the claims of how the Clem Engine worked, no body has ever made a working prototype.
But if you look at physics of whats really going on with cooking oil, high pressure and heat. It is a type of a diesel engine using cooking oil.
You do know a diesel engine will run on cooking oil don't you?
This is how if it was real would have to work in the real world.
The phase change is were the power comes from, not the rotating fluids!
Tom
Sorry to interrupt
It’s just that I absolutely understand that Mr.Reed is _not_
Writing about consumables ( burning anything)
A “phase change” ( moisture in the mix?)
Is an absolute monster if it can be _steered_ …towards a specific direction …
Pressure etc ( lots of pressure …similar to or “like” a diesel… )
A design which through rotation, manifests a “directional” (not unidirectional which would just stall) phase change ,
And resulting output power which is off the charts (350 hp?)
No burning of anything!
Directional phase change forcing rotation ( as written “a type” of diesel ( creating much heat and pressure)
Sorry again to interrupt
Just wanted to clarify the assumption of burning!
Respectfully
Chet K
-
Hi All,
Many people want to make claims of how the Clem engine worked, but when ask what facts do you have, silence!
When someone is making claims like Richard Clem did, do you think they will explain how it really worked? Anyone could be a sales person by making unbelievable claims, the remark of not using Cooking oil and getting 150,000 miles on 8 gallons of cooking oil is one of them.
150,000 miles /60 = 2500 hours and yet he is adding cooking oil to his car.
A phase change is how it worked, take 300+ deg oil and add some water and you have a explosion. I fully understand I could be the only one that built more prototypes of a Clem engine then most people realize.
Some say I'm the expert in this field, others would claim without building a single unit, they know how it works.
I did test beyond 800 psi with oils, the temperature are off the charts. I even had internals cavitation explosion occur that sound like a gun going off.
I see other Claims of people like Donny Watts. I even made one unit 4 ft in diameter, yet no extra energy was create from centrifugal forces.
If the Clem engine was for real, it had to go though a phase change something like water to steam where 1:1600 output.
The real facts will speak for them self when I complete a fully working unit that deals with a type of phase change needed to run.
Is it Over Unity, NO!
Tom.
-
greetings fellow geniuses :D
Perhaps there are many ways to make a Clem 8)
ab
-
In case you missed my post, was 2days under review
https://overunity.com/17647/a-fresh-look-at-the-clem-motor/msg575939/#msg575939
-
?
Nothing more then a pump, no extra energy you will get out of it.
Yes, I did these type of experiment from the start. Much bigger and won't spin without a motor.
Tom...
-
Sir Maxchen
Welcome to forum
It is IMO very nice you use the everyday Appliance for research !
(As long as you don’t get caught by the “kitchen boss”)
More people can experiment this way … the more hands and eyes the open source research community Has the better !
( please remember a shield around it …in the event you get a good result ( the blender to “the slaughter”!!
As researcher Helmut use to say )
Quote
Hi,maybe you find this interessting:THE CLEM ENGINE AND ITS MICRO-DIESELING PHENOMENONhttps://www.academia.edu/81195428/THE_CLEM_ENGINE_PART_1 (https://www.academia.edu/81195428/THE_CLEM_ENGINE_PART_1)my small prototype, still under construction
End quote
Respectfully
Chet
PS
Seeing if your document can be added to forum file open source data base .
-
It's more a replica of Schaubergers Sogwendel, than the Clem Engine. But there are many similiarities.
Im no fan of calculations, more try and Error.
Print it, test it.
If it's not working, at least its Art.
I'm trying to investigate the negative friction phenomen, from Pöppels Experiment / Drallrohr (Helix Pipe)
So maybe i should start an own Thread about this?
Greets from Austria
-
New topic
Yes please!
Respectfully
Chet
-
I’ve sat on the sidelines on this one for years.
I apologize for never taking a look at it….
Horsch (did i spell that right)
Vortex Tube thermal seperator
So try to follow along:
The rotating vortex of air seperates hot and cold air from the ambient
the hot air is jetted out of the nozzles, the force of which is pressure dependent:
Pressure is temperature dependent…..
Therefore, increases in temperature of the output air increases the rotation of the vortex
There seems to actually be a temperature where this force exceeds the driving force required for the vortex tube to function.
This machine may check out, don’t give up
Hope this helps. Life is happening again, so i wont be building for a few months, but i am rather interested in this one now, so its on my list.
-
I’ve sat on the sidelines on this one for years.
I apologize for never taking a look at it….
Horsch (did i spell that right)
Vortex Tube thermal seperator
So try to follow along:
The rotating vortex of air seperates hot and cold air from the ambient
the hot air is jetted out of the nozzles, the force of which is pressure dependent:
Pressure is temperature dependent…..
Therefore, increases in temperature of the output air increases the rotation of the vortex
There seems to actually be a temperature where this force exceeds the driving force required for the vortex tube to function.
This machine may check out, don’t give up
Hope this helps. Life is happening again, so i wont be building for a few months, but i am rather interested in this one now, so its on my list.
Are you talking about the Matzenauer Rotor?
https://www.facebook.com/MazenauerRotor/?locale=de_DE
or
https://www.eputec.de/exair-wirbelrohr/ ?
-
Are you talking about the Matzenauer Rotor?
https://www.facebook.com/MazenauerRotor/?locale=de_DE (https://www.facebook.com/MazenauerRotor/?locale=de_DE)
or
https://www.eputec.de/exair-wirbelrohr/ (https://www.eputec.de/exair-wirbelrohr/) ?
No thats my analysis of the actual clem motor.
Based on the available information.
Take it or leave it
-
Smoky 2
The most important factor to recognise is that the fluid comes out of the nozzles at drematically reduced pressure and temperature. A stumblimg block for the expectations others hold to.
ab
-
Smoky 2
The most important factor to recognise is that the fluid comes out of the nozzles at drematically reduced pressure and temperature. A stumblimg block for the expectations others hold to.
ab
The math says there is both cold and hot vortices.
I would expect heat to transfer to the rotor, as it is the thermal expansion that drives its rotation.
This is not the same situation as something by like Heron’s steam engine, devices like that operate only on changes in pressure like any other steam engine.
Clem is using a different process. One of thermal separation from the ambient. This is a fuelless process, and as long as the vortex remains coherent, it is renewable.
I found the reference: Hilsch was the name
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vortex_tube (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vortex_tube)
The math truncates at low velocities, however the effect does not cease. It still occurs at low rotational speeds, however to a much lesser degree.
The small pressure from the cooking oil begins the rotation and slightly warms the intake air
(this is mostly nitrogen w a little CO2, as the oxygen has been combusted at this point.)
The inner vortex splits this into 2 interlaced streams
(both ends of the vortex tube are the same end in this setup)
the difference in temperature causes a difference in pressure, which exerts a force in the direction of rotation as the hot air expands and cools.
There should be a detectable temperature difference between the center and the outer of the exhaust stream.
-
Using vortex math we can then calculate the average temperature drop from 300 to the output temp and get a feel for the work done by the engine.
Look at the Dirac centrifuge, very similar process,
-
Using vortex math we can then calculate the average temperature drop from 300 to the output temp and get a feel for the work done by the engine.
Look at the Dirac centrifuge, very similar process,
The principals involved here relate to the "venturi effect"
-
Well as Tommey would say ( if he hasn't said it yet he should ): "The proof is in the working prototype"
-
Hi aussiebattler,
Yes the proof is in the prototype, but like always many people would claim they know how it works. I been a little busy and have to head out to Florida in a few weeks. I do believe I should have a fully working prototype this time, even if other would claim that's not how it should work. Many believe it deals with centrifugal forces, but I can't tell how many prototypes I built dealing with centrifugal forces that wouldn't work.
Try doing some math, and even in the real world these numbers was way off.
F = m v² / r
Tom
-
Hi aussiebattler,
Yes the proof is in the prototype, but like always many people would claim they know how it works. I been a little busy and have to head out to Florida in a few weeks. I do believe I should have a fully working prototype this time, even if other would claim that's not how it should work. Many believe it deals with centrifugal forces, but I can't tell how many prototypes I built dealing with centrifugal forces that wouldn't work.
Try doing some math, and even in the real world these numbers was way off.
F = m v² / r
Tom
With all due respects to your sincerity Tom , I did not observe that you recognised the need to have tapering spiral chanels or that you have a closed system that harvests energy from the environment. Perhaps your math might then turn out a different result.
regards ab
-
I been a little busy and have to head out to Florida in a few weeks.
To meet with Donald Trump ?
Are you his attorney ? :)
-
Please keep politics out of this forum!
So, your mathematics is correct?
Have you tested your theory?
Centrifugal force on the weight of fluids is different then having a solid mass at the end of a rotating sphere.
When moving fluid from the center say, 1" diameter 12", it could be any type of impeller design going outward in a rim jet of say .25 will not create enough pressure and flow rate greater then the amount of energy to rotate it.
(24" x pi)/60 =6.28ft, at lets say 1800 rpms you will have a flow rate at 188 ft/sec coming from the 0.25. The amount of pressure thrust is far less energy to keep it spinning.
Take any centrifugal water pump running at 3600 rpms to create 60+ psi no matter what flow rate you want, the energy created wouldn't be enough to create OU.
Here's even a better experiment, take a 4000psi pressure washer and see if you can generate greater energy output...Try a simple water wheel using 4000psi water jet and see what output you will get, I know most of you would even try to do these experiments because of the flaw in mathematics in the real world.
Too many variables = the unknown!
Unless you have a big phase change in a fluid, the amount of energy generated would not reach OU.
Tom
-
What is more important than getting the maths right is to get the physics right firstt,
ab
-
The scheme of things
https://overunity.com/18905/delta-t-energy-technology-the-secret-of-the-clem-motor/dlattach/attach/182404/
-
venturi
-
Note that the high temperature and pressure only occur at the inlet to the restriction
-
aussiebattler,
So this is your theory and claim this is Richard Clem design?
Question: where do you expect to get 400+ psi from?
A torque converter is not a pump, transmission need hydraulic pump to move the fluid through the torque converter inner ports. The torque converter is fluid connection, nothing else.
Since you question the mathematics and talked about physics, how do you expect to generate power output?
Here is one of my old videos, showing no pressure is created in the torque converter.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2L_PBGgHZw&t=122s
The only reason in this test the pressure drop is do to the centrifugal force canceling out a portion of the pump needed to get it running in the first place.
But as it increase in speed, thrust decease also, where do you expect to get a phase change from?
The real reason Richard Clem used cooking oil is due to the high flash point it has. He did in fact use a few hydraulic pumps in his design, this how he was able to get these high temperature and pressure
Keelnet and the founder Jerry Decker, didn't really know how it worked. Even the cone screw design wasn't correct.
Until you get your hands dirty and experiment with real world of physics, you're drawing is just that; nothing and is a insult to those who build stuff.
Tom
-
Thank you for your kind words Tommy. I hope to see one of your devices operating soon as well.
Attached is one of my hand dirtiers showing one vane causing the high pressurs and temp.
thanks for your interest.
-
aussiebattler,
For those who claim how the Clem engine worked and put simple drawings and paste others to explain their theories, should not be taken as facts.
What is a expert in a field?
Someone who has built many prototypes, or someone who draws picture?
Maybe you can get your hands dirty, instead of explaining a theory.
Too many people on these forums that talk, draw and build nothing!
Experiments always trumps theories!
I suggest you start with a water wheel, it much better then a drawing!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7bpUgws1V4
Tom
-
aussiebattler,
This is my experience in working prototype, your design needs hp/rpm's to create pressure. The pressure produce is not free and the output is far less due to the factor of rpm's input vs thrust velocity output.
No different then a centrifugal pump, it take lots of energy to move fluids no matter if it's a volume of water or high pressure of water.
Just look at a pressure washer, do you think your design will create 500-4000 psi? The reason these pumps are pistons instead of centrifugal force impeller is due to amount of force a piston can push the water outward.
Clem engine used 7 stage( could be 7 pistons) hydraulic piston pump for a reason high pressure,temperature and lubrication. This also create the high temperature in the cooking oil, the reason he used cooking oil is the high flash point instead of oils. It is possible that injecting water into the high temperature cooking oil that created a phase change effect. Something I haven't done yet.
I will give you credit of starting to experiment, that's a plus. The question is do you think you're going to create enough pressure to over come input power?
I think this will be a good learning process to start with.
Tom
-
The principals involved here relate to the "venturi effect"
When reduced, yes. The vortices can be described by Inviscid fluid dynamics.
-
It is important to go back to the beginning.
Set aside (for a moment) the replications of people attempting to understand it.
Look at what was given to us by the inventor.
Look at the description of the device
And what we know about its’ characteristics.
The laws of convection dictate there are areas of hot and areas of less hot
contained in the stream of hot gasses from the burner.
The vortices separate these into a temperature (and subsequent pressure) differential.
This thermal potential is then converted into further rotational force,
simultaneously accelerating the process (to a system maximum) and also
lowering the (average) temperature of the gasses by converting heat to work.
The most interesting aspect of this device (to me) is not what it does or how it converts the heat to rotation, these things are trivial and mostly well understood.
The point of interest i find most intriguing is not even being mentioned here::
most arguments concern the output of the rotor.
But most seem to miss the point that the exhaust gasses (though colder than at the burner) are still well above ambient. If the claim of OU stops at the rotor!?! Where does that put the remaining thermal energy of the exhaust?
I suppose many engines are suspect in this area, have you ever compared the total energy consumed by your car, in terms of the mobility, recharging the electrical systems, and then try to add in all the heat output?
It is estimated (by Carnot) that 50% of your fuel is converted directly to heat losses.
Where does this heat go? Can we recover it? (Seebeck Exhaust Generators used to be a thing)
Exhaust from the Clem engine could possibly boil water after it leaves the machine.
i think if we are measuring efficiency or energy in and out, this should be done with respect to the thermal differential between the gas coming out of the burner, and the temperature of the exhaust.
It has been considered that the Rank/Hilsch device does not follow Carnot Law
-
We can test this:
By running hot water through a mechanical rotary sprinkler
(the pure rotary ones, not an oscillating sprinkler)
The output water is 2 streams one inside the other.
One very hot, the other very cold.
I’m sure it does this with cold water to a lesser degree though i have not measured that.
-
What astounds me the most is that commentators on the Clem fail to explain where the energy that gives us 350 hp to drive the car and produces a bunch of heat as well (that we need to do away with ) comes from. Well of course we have heard about the breakdown of the cooking oil but this does not fit with Clem's dialouge.
-
Hi aussiebattler,
Ok, now you have a very good question.
Lets look at the claim of 350hp, 1800 rpms, cooking oild and temperature over 300deg.
350hp*(5252/1800) = 1021.2 ft/lb of torque is needed at a constant.
This is a lot of thrust and depending on the size, flow rate and other factors. If it's 24" diameter spinning at 1800 rpms the velocity needed would be greater then 188.4ft/sec. In fact it would need double that due to load. 188.4 just gets you up to speed, put a load on it and it will slow down to balance out.
So to be safe, 376.8ft/sec just for the total velocity of the jets.
To generate the thrust and keep the velocity would be calculated by the size of the jets and number of them. This also will deal with how much fluid flow rate is needed gpm and psi.
These are big numbers to deal with, if all starts with what size you plan to build.
I have a hydraulic pump that produce 80gpm@2000 psi/1714 = 93.34 hp needed to move that amount of fluid and pressure.
I still believe that it was a type of diesel effect with the cooking oil to get this much power out of it.
Tom
-
Tommy
By your explanation it is not so incredible how the motor works but rather how much energy you can get out of a few bottles of cooking oil (even enough to pump it to high pressure as well)
ab
-
What gets me, everyone is looking for a free lunch, instead of looking for more efficiency. We already see the Prius that get 55mpg, yet we still are looking for a free lunch.
Nothing is free, but it doesn't mean we can't get higher efficiency. In fact if the Clem engine did run off cooking oil, it would have been the most efficient engine today.
It's also possible that he used water injected into 300+deg cooking oil to create a super heated steam turbine. I have not experimented on this, but we all can see the effects of water mixing in with super heated cooking oil.
Tom
-
Tom
As I understand it Clem celebrated a free lunch and I am seeeking a similar meal.
I also wish you well in your endeavours
ab
-
An oldie but a goodie
-
Hello AB,
Thanks for the document. The only thing I did not understand from the document is whether or not the outside cone rotates with the inner cone. My understanding from what I have studied is that the outside cone needs to be stationary. The friction between the oil at the boundary layer between the oil and the outside cone helps to increase the heating of the oil and thus helps increase the pressure which of course increases the thrust at the nozzles.
Thanks for your efforts and your sharing.
Carroll
-
Hello AB,
Thanks for the document. The only thing I did not understand from the document is whether or not the outside cone rotates with the inner cone. My understanding from what I have studied is that the outside cone needs to be stationary. The friction between the oil at the boundary layer between the oil and the outside cone helps to increase the heating of the oil and thus helps increase the pressure which of course increases the thrust at the nozzles.
Thanks for your efforts and your sharing.
Carroll
Sorry I misunderstood you at first. No outer and inner are joined for ske of ease of manufacture. I would say that we do not need extra load of friction causing heat . I beleive the heat caused by pressure at the nozzles is all that is needed
I like your work. Seems like we are of one spirit
ab
-
The large amount of disinformation and misunderstanding is what holds many back...
Here are some good resources,
http://www.rexresearch.com/clemengn/clemeng.htm
http://www.rexresearch.com/schaub/schaub.htm
AC
-
Hi onepower,
I read just about everything I could get my hands on, about the Clem engine, many if not most of those design where made up.
The cone was never used I new this from the start, but people keep pushing it.
The 7 stage piston pump could be the main part of the system. I was using gear pumps in my testing and realize this was not the best pump for this project. Wear is s big factor, and pressure drop.
When I did some high pressure test, there were cavitation internal explosion occurring coming from the jets outlets. Like a small gun going off.
One important fact using just hydraulic oil, it got very dark while running a few prototypes and settle to the bottom but was not iron from the metal. More like carbon ash, almost like something was burning inside the system.
Cooking oil worked very well at higher pressure, not the same burning effect as hydraulic oil. But over night when it cool down, it turn into a thick grease when it was mixing with air.
The Clem engine would have to be a closed loop if cooking oil was used, the cavitation of micro bubbles could still occur.
As for size, this also matters. You still have to get torque and rpm's to do any type of mechanical work.
Again, I'm not calling myself a expert, I just have years of experience building many prototype dealing the the Clem Engine theories.
Tom
-
Hey Tommey
It's important to understand there are time lines and a learning curve involved with the process of invention.
In the pictures below we can see Viktor Schauberger started with a spiral cone shaped device supposedly similar in form to the oil pump Clem discovered self-running. However the later designs of both Schauberger and Clem look very similar in form to a torque converter. The descriptions are also very similar speaking of rotating spiral channels, moving fluids and exit nozzles.
There is another possibility I think we both understand as maker/inventors. As Einstein implied, the secret to creativity is knowing when to hide our sources. Many inventors never invented anything and heard about a technology, were involved with others or it was given to them. For example, Alfred Hubbard was not an inventor and he was supposedly a 16 year old busboy for Nikola Tesla who gave the technology to him. So we could ask, did Clem invent this machine or did he read about something or was it given to him and the whole story about a self-running tar pump made up?. So everything must be taken with a grain of salt.
As well, in the literature there are many other similar devices/phenomena which used oil, oil and water, water, water and air, steam, steam and water as well as water with any number of substances added to it. Viktor Schauberger spoke of adding minerals and/or "carbones" ie. hydrocarbons to his water to enhance the effect.
I like your video's, right or wrong there pretty cool and creative. I was raised on a farm and built/fabricated almost everything just because I could, still do. I look at some of the cheap stuff people try to sell and think I can do better and give it a go. If nothing else, it's one hell of a hobby and you never know...
AC
-
Hi onepower,
I agree, but even those claims are questionable when nobody has a video of a working model.
I think research is very important, I seen some people talk about physics and lots of pictures. The real way of learning is just build it and be willing not to stop.
Some even talk about not using math, yet try building a dog house without basic math.
We have thousand of designs that claim to be OU, we also have experts in many fields in this forum that try to duplicate these builds.
I believe 99% of these claims are just that, yet nobody has yet copy a single OU device yet.
I tested the Clem engine theories, none of them created more energy output vs input.
But have seen the phase change needed to push it beyond OU.
Tom
-
Hi onepower,
I agree, but even those claims are questionable when nobody has a video of a working model.
I think research is very important, I seen some people talk about physics and lots of pictures. The real way of learning is just build it and be willing not to stop.
Some even talk about not using math, yet try building a dog house without basic math.
We have thousand of designs that claim to be OU, we also have experts in many fields in this forum that try to duplicate these builds.
I believe 99% of these claims are just that, yet nobody has yet copy a single OU device yet.
I tested the Clem engine theories, none of them created more energy output vs input.
But have seen the phase change needed to push it beyond OU.
Tom
Yes Tommy
With such a gathering of intelligence that we have here, wouldn't you think that somebody among us would be able to overcome the laws of physics
-
aussiebattler,
It seems you're an expert in physics, so I would expect you to build a OU device very soon.
Physics has lots of mathematical formulas, anyone can can find them and duplicate the outcome of a formula.
But nobody can duplicate past OU claims, no matter what formula they add to it. Let me ask you directly, why not?
It seems everyone wants free energy, but look at solar that produce energy while the sun is out and they won't except this as free. Why not Mr expert?
It seem like a fantasy trip you are on, yet nothing to show. They call this BS!
I won't expect you will solve the Over Unity question very soon, it's seem you're more of hot air then proving a fantasy dream.
Good day!
Tom
-
Tom
tut tut
Where did I say anything about OU?
Free energy yes -just like solar and wind -sourced from the sun (ambient reheats chilled oil)
Merry Christmas
ab
-
So AB,
"To date experimenters may have been looking in the wrong direction when trying to replicate the Clem motor. Perhaps it is expedient to consider what Richard Clem saw when he watched the tar pump continue after the power to it was turned off. He would have noticed of course that the revolutions continued only up to the time that the temperature of the tar reduced to a certain level. Most likelyt he would have concluded that the giving up of heat energy in the device was responsible for the conversion to rotational energy.
No doubt his thoughts would then consider how such a phenomenon could be used as the basis for a usable power source. Presumably he would have thought that a "free" heat source would be ambient temperature. The rest is history.
Hopefully i will get to proving this very soon.
Stay tuned"
This is your first post and now claim you don't believe in OU. So why try to build it? Claiming you have a fresh look of how the Clem engine worked and didn't do your home work?
If you have did your own research, you would have notice the asphalt pump was never used is his engine.
Since you really don't know what your talking about, what is your main goal?
Is it to lead other down a path of nothing?
Many people like yourself do this all the time on these forums, repeat from the past and nothing come of it.
It's time to call you out, what are your true motive? You clearly don't know how the Clem engine worked, but you claim you have a fresh understanding.
If you think a blender will give you the answers, go right ahead. But , make sure you do a YouTube video and the amount of energy your using.
When will you do the test? I would like to see what you have, instead being disrespectful. Time to show your cards!
Tom
-
The cone shape pump was never used or sold on the market!
Which pump is best in asphalt?
The positive displacement technology represented by the screw pump is the best suited for handling asphalt and the related products. The pumping principle of the screw can be visualized as a pump having a “piston” with infinite stroke.May 2, 2018
This screw pump was used in the 80's
Tom
-
Isn't it amazing that after many years of posting here some, who you would have thought would know better, still get confused between "free energy" and "over unity "
-
???
Just like I thought, another nobody who claims they have a fresh look with no experience is this field.
But some people will mock other who does, kids these day. They think they know something, yet when put to the test, all they can do is play word games.
Sometimes, I think the BS is beyond control on forums. When ask a direct question they try to redirect the answer.
Just show real integrity and honesty seems to be out the door today. It might be due to this woke generation young and old who talk out of both side of their mouths.
Either way, I believe these people need to be called out, when the BS starts hitting the fan.
What is the criteria for being an expert?
Knowledge, skill, and achievement are all critical components of expertise. People who become experts tend to acquire a body of knowledge that makes them one of the most informed individuals in their field. They also possess the skills that they need to determine when and how to use their knowledge.
I don't need to explain a bullsh-- artist!
Tom
-
Gee Tommy. There sure is somebody here that you don't like.
-
Personally
Until such time as a true “runner” gets open sourced…
We should not forget why we are here , and how we
actually do need each other …, as those willing to share their work
Are as rare as hens teeth…
Personally,
I have nothing but gratitude for those who carry water and dedicate themselves
To this “thing we do”..
Below our mission statement…
-
Tommey
The cone shape pump was never used or sold on the market!
Which pump is best in asphalt?
The positive displacement technology represented by the screw pump is the best suited for handling asphalt and the related products. The pumping principle of the screw can be visualized as a pump having a “piston” with infinite stroke.
Something seems off with the story. When I was a teenager I worked on a highway paving crew and never saw any asphalt pumps. There were heavy oil pumps which were usually a gear/vane type pump. Asphalt(heavy oil and crushed rock) was always moved with a conveyor or augers.
Here's a clue, from http://www.rexresearch.com/clemengn/clemeng.htm
Richard Clem worked with heavy machinery for the city of Dallas. He used asphalt-spraying equipment, which pumped liquid asphalt.
I have seen asphalt-spraying equipment up close on a road crew and were talking about heavy oil pumps not an asphalt(oil and crushed rock) pump. The asphalt sprayer is basically a water truck with heaters to keep the oil liquid which uses a spray bar with nozzles on the back to coat the road with oil. The heated oil is actually very light like cooking oil when it comes out and I remember getting splashed with that stuff. The only thing which will remove it from clothes is soaking it in a solvent like varsol. In fact we used to burn bunker C oil in our boilers which is slightly lighter than bitumen. We used tank/line heaters and gear pumps to pump bunker C up to 80 psi for the burners.
So it sounds to me like the people reporting on the Clem motor got there story all mixed up. Were talking about a heavy oil pump but the oil is actually very light like cooking oil once heated. As such a conical drag/screw pump shown in the link would have no problem with it.
AC
-
In my opinion the similarities between the Schauberger and Clem devices is uncanny.
A closed pancake form
Able to operate closed loop within a vessel
Utilize the rotation of an inner part throwing a medium outward
Utilize the motion of pressurized fluids through perimeter nozzles
Self-sustaining once in operation
Able to generate an excess of energy and heat
What are the odds two people would build technology which is almost identical in it's form and function?. I would bet money that if we opened up Clem's device we would see something similar to Viktor Schauberger's designs inside it.
As well, we could use a little common sense. Take a screw form and push down flattening it, what kind of form do we get?. We get a wavy plate with a spiral form which has a more compact design. Now we add some nozzles on the perimeter and we end up with the same design as Schauberger and Clem's devices. Both inventors also claimed once started both devices could generate excess power with no outside energy sources required.
In my opinion it's so in our face and obvious it's almost impossible to deny. To answer my last question, the odds both inventors accidentally built two devices almost identical in form and function is like winning the lottery. The odds that both inventors similar devices accidentally produced excess energy and heat is zero.
These people knew exactly what they were doing and either they knew of each others work or they came to the same conclusions on which direction the technology should take. They literally ended up with the same design with the same purpose.
AC
-
Thanks for your insight onepower
Perhaps now the quest for the "holy" grail is more on track than it had been.
From Delta-T FB
Basic physics tells us that as pressure of a liquid increases so does it's temperature. Now if you have liquid flowing in tapering chanels while revolving at high speed you will get some very high pressure at the extremities. If you then release that liquid through small orifices you are setting up the "venturi effect" where the liquid will release energy giving up temperature in the process . The energy loss can then be restored by absorbing heat from the atmosphere -even on cold days . The result is no cost of fuel for 24/7 /365 and
suitable for all kinds of applications.
Do you think the oil companies or the wind and solar boys like this one?
BTW Bitumen and asphalt are two different things and require different types of pump
ab
-
I think you are looking at the inverse of whats going on within the engine.
My take on this is closer to Schauberger than Venturi.
venturi is the inside out perspective (toilet)
There have been many attempts to describe vortex action using venturi pressure inversion,
But the math simply is not compatible.
-
Here is a tool to experiment with:
You can get ahold of one of these or possibly 3-D print one.
https://www.wasserwirbler.de/english.html (https://www.wasserwirbler.de/english.html)
And here is some data using a fuel with similar properties
https://repository.up.ac.za/bitstream/handle/2263/61941/Jafargholinejad_Simulation_2016.pdf?isAllowed=y&sequence=1 (https://repository.up.ac.za/bitstream/handle/2263/61941/Jafargholinejad_Simulation_2016.pdf?isAllowed=y&sequence=1)
-
Putting this knowledge together with what we know of the device:
We see an internal reflection of heat; and a cold output
Once you’re done toying around with vortexes,
Watch this video: fast forward to about 43.5 minutes
https://youtu.be/yXPrLGUGZsw (https://youtu.be/yXPrLGUGZsw)
This is a process of stimulating the environment, similar to how a hurricane or tornado forms.
But under a controlled condition. This process is considered to be exothermic.
In contrast, the Venturi effect reverses this process and requires energy input.
https://youtu.be/Pnr2PeJ7q5A (https://youtu.be/Pnr2PeJ7q5A)
-
Hi smokey
So what is your experience in producing experiments to support Clem's motor ?
-
I think you are looking at the inverse of whats going on within the engine.
My take on this is closer to Schauberger than Venturi.
venturi is the inside out perspective (toilet)
There have been many attempts to describe vortex action using venturi pressure inversion,
But the math simply is not compatible.
Please explain how you get this 'inverse' status?
What do you say is happening at the nozzles?
ab
-
NANNY Required for care and nurturing of testosterone deprived toy tester, prone to tissy fits and temper tantrums and spitting out his pacifier whenever anybody steps in his sand pit.
-
Quoting Tesla:
“Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through
equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.”
This information is offered so that you don’t get stung!
-
smokey2
Watch this video: fast forward to about 43.5 minutes
https://youtu.be/yXPrLGUGZsw
This is a process of stimulating the environment, similar to how a hurricane or tornado forms.
But under a controlled condition. This process is considered to be exothermic.
On the vortex, I 3D printed some of Schaubergers stuff and the process is much easier to understand than many supposed.
The outer spiral is always changing direction as well as the inner twist. As Schauberger claims, the flow is always turned inward to the center. What many seem to have missed is that the spiral tube wasn't connected to a water source like a garden hose but was free flowing or pulled by a suction force. This causes air to be sucked up with the water producing an intermittent flow.
With an intermittent flow of water and air the slugs of water turned inward, inside the double fluted tube, become "airborne" half the time. Every double twist is like a little ramp which pushes the slug of water upward and inward. Now the slug of water is no longer touching the side of the tube creating drag it's airborne inside the center of the tube.
It's so simple even a child could understand it, if the tube wall creates drag on the water don't let the water touch the wall as much.
AC
-
Hi onepower
What you showed is not Shauberger's vortex pipe - this is:
Perhaps we could move to anothe location
ab
-
aussiebattler
What you showed is not Shauberger's vortex pipe - this is:
Perhaps we could move to another location
In fact, neither of our pictures is a true vortex pipe and I was only showing the principal of turning a flow inwards towards a center. Schaubergers vortex pipe was what he called a whorl pipe as shown in the device below. A doubly twisted pipe having a dual cyclonic action.
It applies here because Clem used similar language when describing his technology. A supposedly cone shaped rotor with spiraling channels and perimeter nozzles later replaced by a flattened more compact design.
From Clem...
The pump, as he described it, is used to move the oil, under pressure, from a storage area to the converter from where
the energy is converted into enough power to turn the motor, move the oil back to the storage area and power the
pump, which in turn continues the cycle.
One hint as to the contents of the converter is "it acts like a turbine but isn't a turbine" in the normal sense of the
word, Clem said
From the Clem rexresearch file.
The motor had only one moving part, a cone shaped rotor mounted vertically on a hollow shaft. Spiral channels cut
into the cone wound around its length and feed into peripheral nozzles at its large end. When fluid flowed through the
spiral channels it was ejected out the nozzles and caused the cone to spin. At a certain velocity, the rotating cone
became independent of the starter pump and began to operate by itself. At an operating speed of 1800 to 2300 RPM
the fluid heated up to 300° F, requiring a heat exchanger. Vegetable oil was used because at 300° F water boils and
conventional engine oil breaks down. A 12-volt battery was the only other power source.
Clem never applied for a patent because his motor design was derived from the asphalt pump that was already
patented. Fifteen companies turned him down before a large coal company offered to back him and signed contracts
to sell the motor. Soon after the deal was signed, Richard Clem died of a heart attack.
Isn't that convenient, Clem signs over the rights to a large coal company then dies of a heart attack. The coal company buries the technology and Clem then it's business as usual. The lesson here is people involved in the fossil fuel industry are as psychotic as the day is long and cannot be trusted under any circumstances. Coincidentally, it was a bunch of psychotic dim wits from texas oil country who destroyed Schauberger as well.
AC
-
whatever
-
Hi smokey
So what is your experience in producing experiments to support Clem's motor ?
I have not yet attempted a build of this one. I only recently began researching this topic.
I have seen many other peoples attempts, and from my perspective, not many are replicating the original device as described.
-
I have not yet attempted a build of this one. I only recently began researching this topic.
I have seen many other peoples attempts, and from my perspective, not many are replicating the original device as described.
Yes Well we have only had 50 yrs to do so.
-
One of the reasons most people have failed in attempting to build the Clem engine is they just don't understand fluid dynamics. In almost all of the replication attempts I have seen the builder uses a long straight pipe going directly out from the center and then they put an elbow on the end with a nozzle and expect that to work. The original pump that Clem claims was his inspiration for his machine had a long curving narrowing path for the fluid to follow. This has several advantages over the straight pipe with an elbow.
Look at the picture I have attached. If you understand fluid dynamics you realize that as soon as the water or other fluid starts to curve to the right that is also putting a reaction force on the left pipe wall which of course would make the pipe want to move to the left. And the force continues to be applied to the pipe for almost the full length of the pipe. Whereas the straight pipe with an elbow on the end only has that force right at the elbow.
The other problem with the straight pipe and elbow is that you are trying to take a large volume of slow moving fluid and suddenly turn it into a small volume of fast moving fluid. If you have ever tried to turn a 10 pound flywheel from 0 to 200 rpm in 2 seconds you realize that takes a lot of force. But if you have 20 seconds to get that flywheel up to 200 rpms that takes a lot less force. The sudden change in direction at the elbow is also another serious waste of energy.
The long tapered gradually curving pipe allows the fluid to smoothly increase in speed and also allows the reaction force of the fluid to be distributed along almost the entire length of the pipe. With the long tapered curved pipe there are no sudden changes in either speed or direction so the fluid is moved much more efficiently. The long tapered pipe also allows more of the fluid to be near the outer edge of the spinning disc and thus subjected to more centrifugal force which increases the pressure on the fluid.
Respectfully,
Carroll
-
Citfta
One of the reasons most people have failed in attempting to build the Clem engine is they just don't understand fluid dynamics. In almost all of the replication attempts I have seen the builder uses a long straight pipe going directly out from the center and then they put an elbow on the end with a nozzle and expect that to work. The original pump that Clem claims was his inspiration for his machine had a long curving narrowing path for the fluid to follow. This has several advantages over the straight pipe with an elbow.
Indeed, most people built what amounts to a simple rotary lawn sprinkler.
Which begs the question, what did they think was going to happen?. This reminds me of Hero's rotary steam engine which was invented around 30 BC or about 2000 years ago. Which begs another question, how is it so many today can seem to do no better than someone 2000 years ago?. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeolipile#See_also
It's on us, who actually want to learn, to pick up our game and do better.
AC
-
It is the shear simplicity of the Clem design that keeps the "professionals " away.
-
aussiebattler
It is the shear simplicity of the Clem design that keeps the "professionals " away.
Yes most experts would agree it's unworkable because they have no knowledge of how it could.
From what I have seen maybe a fraction of 1% of experts actually invent/discover something new. The rest simply follow the 1% and repeat what they did which is more like a memory skill or repetition than expertise. Like the supposed hunter following an expert hunting guide but loses there guide and immediately gets lost and starves to death. There not a real hunter there a follow a longer pretending to be a hunter.
So far as experts are concerned I only have one criteria. A real expert can solve the problem at hand and the rest are just want to be experts pretending they know what there doing. If they can't getter done, there no expert.
AC
-
aussiebattler
Yes most experts would agree it's unworkable because they have no knowledge of how it could.
From what I have seen maybe a fraction of 1% of experts actually invent/discover something new. The rest simply follow the 1% and repeat what they did which is more like a memory skill or repetition than expertise. Like the supposed hunter following an expert hunting guide but loses there guide and immediately gets lost and starves to death. There not a real hunter there a follow a longer pretending to be a hunter.
So far as experts are concerned I only have one criteria. A real expert can solve the problem at hand and the rest are just want to be experts pretending they know what there doing. If they can't getter done, there no expert.
AC
So how would you "ketter done?" Just curious.
Thanks,
-
What “some “ feel could play a part in the gain mechanism ( phase change to steam in hot oil)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wkAbV-yXy0M (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wkAbV-yXy0M)
Slow motion starts approx .52sec- 1 minute into vid ..
Mucho gusto …”instant” 1600 fold expansions …
After all ..350 hp ( as claimed by Clem)
Is no small amount of power ..( although his engine is small for that
big output claim)
Considering his tech was never given a chance to evolve ..( could probably be much smaller)
Yes Tom did share that he had what seemed anomalous outputs ( shocks or ?
During some experiments..
Getting phase change shocks into a driving ( directional) result…
Should be doable..
At least a gain mechanism that could supply huge outputs in a small package
Or does the oil itself “phase” at temperature?( and then recombine ( still usable ?)
I believe Tom had mentioned testing that too ..( to do list)
Tom mentioned Some simple test beds are scheduled to try to dial in the phase change theory .
However
Gotta pay the bills .. so like most here …
Limited time
-
Get your pop corn ready for the Clem world series event when the water in boiling oil boys meet the ambient harvesting venturi dudes. It should be quite a contest.
I am particularly interested in where the energy comes from to heat the oil.
-
aussiebattler
Get your pop corn ready for the Clem world series event when the water in boiling oil boys meet the ambient harvesting venturi dudes. It should be quite a contest.
I am particularly interested in where the energy comes from to heat the oil.
The water in oil idea seems far fetched at first but there could be something to it...
1)A hot oil system on cooling down could pull humid air into the system which then condenses as water. It fits the profile because there must be an anomaly not commonly found in most other systems. The effect or process must be different and unknown to a majority of people.
2)The energy required to produce a phase change in water is 2257KJ/KG. However many who don't understand energy tend to think all the heat must be added to the system which is false. A heat pump does not "produce" all the heat energy within the system it "moves" a majority of it. Thus what we may be looking for is an efficient means to recycle or transform the heat energy within the system using the least amount of work.
3)Connect the dots. Viktor Schauberger often used a mixture of air and water however he did claim other materials could work as well. Clem could have stumbled onto a process which uses steam and oil versus air and water. Schauberger also claimed his device could remove heat or produce an excess of it within parts of the system.
AC
-
I am particularly interested in where the energy comes from to heat the oil.
That is provided by compression ( I believe Tom did reference a 7 stage pump ( from Clem)
So now I understand your …apprehension with this particular theory…
I always assumed it was self evident..
My apologies
-
Yes Well we have only had 50 yrs to do so.
Have you had any luck in this 50 years?
-
place a mass on a string and tie it to a force scale
Now: create 2 things:
First a venturi suction junction
Second a Schauberger vortex inverse spatial force.
Now using the force scale, allow the mass to be sucked into the force.
Compare the two, and tell me which one is closer to Clem’s results
-
Have you had any luck in this 50 years?
Luck -No
Wisdom - yes
-
place a mass on a string and tie it to a force scale
Now: create 2 things:
First a venturi suction junction
Second a Schauberger vortex inverse spatial force.
Now using the force scale, allow the mass to be sucked into the force.
Compare the two, and tell me which one is closer to Clem’s results
Please send me a drawing showing how to do that with 8 nozzles doing 3000 rpm while in a closed oil system.
Another thing
Once you have exhausted the "energy" within the hot oil (whch is insde the device before exiting thru the nozzles) , how will there be any energy left to turn it?
ab
-
aussiebattler
Once you have exhausted the "energy" within the hot oil (whch is insde the device before exiting thru the nozzles) , how will there be any energy left to turn it?
This is a common problem, similar to a mechanic trying to debate at a physics convention. It's this continual dumbing down to the lowest level of thinking which has led to most of our problems.
First, if were going to talk about energy we need to understand what it is and how it works. Energy is not "exhausted", consumed, depleted, destroyed or used up. Energy is conserved and cannot be created or destroyed only transformed. We cannot lose or gain energy but we can transform it to change a process or alter the action vs reaction.
Whenever I work on a technology I use a primer to set the narrative.
https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/atoms-greatest-miracle/
We need to expand our thinking not dumb it down.
This is another good read.
T.H.Moray, THE SEA OF ENERGY IN WHICH THE EARTH FLOATS
AC
-
Compression makes heat
Once heat is at design parameters for an
“Event”
The Event takes the wheel and provides the power
To “rinse and repeat”
A diesel works this way ..
The phase change method should also work similar ..
One minute mark in this vid https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wkAbV-yXy0M (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wkAbV-yXy0M)
A threshold is reached where huge “event” manifests to loop
Or run !
Tom is actually going to work with simple test chamber at first ( no need to
Build a running prototype, just show the power in one snapshot)
Keeping it as simple as possible is the goal ( test bed)
Regardless
It’s a cool experiment ( one of many similar experiments with water /super heated steam .. “Sam leach” lithium claim etc etc ..on the table )
Tom has soo many test beds from previous experiments.. he can do all manner of mock ups
At amazing speed!
Myself
I would also luv to understand the method suggested by OnePower and Aussiebattler
Can a simple test bed be produced for “snap shots” ?
Vacuum pressure etc etc ( towards manifesting the claimed gain mechanism?
From the sea of energy or … ( phase change is sort of doing that with molecular manipulations!
Utilizing heat through pressure..
-
Pardon my ignorance but I still dont see of any preposals to convert the energy of the "explosion " into useful rotational energy. Sure in a diesel engine that is done in a combustion chamber, But there is no talk of that here. It would be like letting off a fire cracker in a skyrocket - using up the available fuel
-
Edit
No more from me in this thread about phase change …until it shows positive test results !
Just sharing some info
Here an image from a condensate shockwave pump
super sonic (actually was said “hypersonic “)
Utilizing “opposite” of phase change ( collapsing steam back to water and attending shockwave )
PDX had been testing this for British naval propulsion applications
It is said research was taken private ….
(Patent https://patents.google.com/patent/US6662549 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US6662549))
However condensate shockwave pumps are allegedly being used in food industry ( no moving parts
Just steam injection.)
Yes there are challenges to cause directional flow …
IMO
If such a simple principle can be put to use ( As PDX did)
Too simple to not play with …even Tesla’s one way water valve could …..?
Aussiebattler
There is too much fun in this path ..let’s try to keep the fun … and ability for the “Everyman” to
Experiment ..
Yeah, definitely have to be careful… with such power !
Making heat through pressure is easy..( relatively)
In a disc ..a spiral ..a piston …etc etc
Introducing a phase change fluid ( air/water…)
1 minute mark
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wkAbV-yXy0M (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wkAbV-yXy0M)
Incredibly small amount of water in the hot oil( one drop)
See also from same propulsion company!
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4738-fighting-fire-with-a-steam-machine/ (https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4738-fighting-fire-with-a-steam-machine/)
-
Please send me a drawing showing how to do that with 8 nozzles doing 3000 rpm while in a closed oil system.
Another thing
Once you have exhausted the "energy" within the hot oil (whch is insde the device before exiting thru the nozzles) , how will there be any energy left to turn it?
ab
Now you’re getting it!
See why this is not a venturi?
-
Pardon my ignorance but I still dont see of any preposals to convert the energy of the "explosion " into useful rotational energy. Sure in a diesel engine that is done in a combustion chamber, But there is no talk of that here. It would be like letting off a fire cracker in a skyrocket - using up the available fuel
What happens when energy is in a constant state of decrease?
It must draw from the environment, yes?
Endothermic
I’m sure you have seen (at least on video) an oceanic cyclone?
Or a UFO when it recharges it’s oxygen and heat supply?
Or videos of the Repulsine?
Its not “suction” in the Venturi sense.
Its “suction” in the Dyson sense. Schauberger
Negative pressure, not lower pressure.
Negative being below the ambient.
Go to TK’s youtube channell and search for something called Anatmosphere
The properties of space change under these conditions.
the reason water swirls down a drain, is because we are in the vortex of the earth field.
It actually Gains momentum during this event vs straight gravitational acceleration over the same vertical distance.
Jet engines produce more force for the same explosion of fuel.
Gyroscopes reduce the gravitational effect
Watch a maple seed fall from its’ tree
-
Now you’re getting it!
See why this is not a venturi?
sshhh Why do I bother answering questions?
-
sshhh Why do I bother answering questions?
you are thinking in terms of propulsion
what occurs is the inverse
an airplane wing lifts due to changes in pressure,
as Venturi describes
The repulsine lifts by causing a channel of negative pressure in front of it.
and pulls itself along
Its not being pushed from beneath, in fact most of the pressure is 1ATM surrounding the device.
it does not follow the rules of aeronautics
This is the same thing that occurs in the system Clem described, internally
there are two forces acting in opposite directions, with opposite force vectors.
(the forward and the reflective i would label it but Schauberger uses his own terminology)
This results in a cooperative directional rotation
the thermal energy is converted on its way out
as for me creating a schematic for you,… this is not likely to occur for at least 2 months,
as such an undertaking would require time i do not currently have.
and, of course i would have to build it so i’m not handing you a theoretical design plan.
this will require building a burner, obtaining this fuel he used,
Etc etc
Not beyond reason, but not today. Once i get my new lab set up i will probably make some small prototypes to do some tests, and work out the proper parameters
in terms of airflow, fuel-air mixture, aperture sizes, angles of curvature
and a few of the details that aren’t explicitly given to us.
This is a highly advanced technology, most of the devices that make use of this principle have not been successfully replicated.
There is a repulsine here in Austin, the company that hired Schauberger to build it has put it on display a few times. (One was the video clip i shared above)
It can be explained how Clems motor works (probably in a few more different ways of describing it if you are still confused) but building one, may be harder than we imagine, especially without proper machining. Things have been handmade in the past with similarly low tolerances but thats more of an art than just throwing some parts together.
We basically want to build a small jet engine
(comparable analogy in terms of technical construction)
After identifying the parameters, this may be a 3d print or custom order components
not sure we can do this with just a nozzle and a pipe bender, if you know what i mean
-
smokey
I hope you get somewhere with all your thoeries.
As for me I just looked at what Clem did and said "yep I could do that" ( with the help of a 3d printer. cnc machining and laser cutting of course). I also paid particular attention to details like spiralling csa depleting channels jn a closed system and a heat exchanger to restore ambient.
ab
-
Just to show that nobody read the Rex Research on the cone theory.
http://www.rexresearch.com/clemengn/clemeng.htm
So I'll just add this false claim on the cone theory and the inventor!
When I first read about the Clem Motor I found it odd that a deal had been made with a coal company. Was there a connection with the pump? After finding the Conical Drag Pump patent, I wanted to contact the inventor Walter D. Haentjens of Barrett, Haentjens & Co., Hazleton, Pennsylvania. Otto Haentjens founded Barrett Haentjens & Co., in 1916. The business began in the coalmines of Pennsylvania with Otto Haentjens original patent on the balanced opposed impeller multi-stage volute pump. The company still supplies pumps to the coal industry. They have expanded to other markets and their pumps are installed in many industries worldwide. It's now known as Hazleton Pumps Inc., after its acquisition by The Weir Group.
I contacted Peter Haentjens, the VP/General Manager of Hazleton Pumps, by e-mail to find out if this pump had ever been put into production. He replied that they had not done anything with the patent:
One reason this is not a good pump, is the amount of thrust bearing being push outward due to the pressure. It acts like a piston when pressure is increased, causing it to lose fluid!
Even a screw pump will produce pressure on the thrust bearing for injection moldings, what make you think something much bigger would handle even higher pressure loads?
Tom
-
Tommy
From the rex research article...
The above account contains only what I considered to be relevant for analysis of the Clem motor. The gear pumps, typically used for asphalt spaying, do not match the description of the pump used by the city of Dallas back in 1972. There should be public records showing what equipment manufacture the asphalt sprayer was purchased from. Since the asphalt pump was patented, I searched for a pump patent that met the following criteria:
1) Patent issued on or before 1972
2) Delivered pressure equivalent to a positive displacement gear pump.
3) Cone shaped rotor with spiral channels.
4) Self-propelling action.
5) Capable of pumping a viscous fluid like asphalt.
6) Large heat transfer to pumped fluids.
As we can see the author never claimed this was the same pump only that it could be similar in there opinion.
Many people also seem to be confusing the time line. Clem stumbled onto a asphalt oil pump which kept running then started building other devices based on that device. Clem's later designs show two parts, a gear driven oil pump driving an enclosed rotating turbine of some sort.
One reason this is not a good pump, is the amount of thrust bearing being push outward due to the pressure. It acts like a piston when pressure is increased, causing it to lose fluid!
Not really, as an engineer I'm familiar with most pump engineering having designed/tested pumps and gas turbines. The outlet (big flat end of cone) has a larger surface area and higher pressure producing a large force to the left. This large force to the left should be balanced with the total pressure/area of the cone wanting to push right. As well, look at the angle of the cone, most of the pressure near the wall acts inward not to the right. So we want to balance the big cone end (pressure/area) with the (pressure/area) of the rest of the cone which acts at an angle, less angle=less force.
Another trick is to use a spring/valve regulator on the output to regulate the output pressure thus thrust force to balance the internal forces. We can also add a little wiggle room so that the pressure/thrust forces control the clearances and even allow for wear over time reducing adjustments. This is why engineers make the big bucks, they thought of all the small details most people never even notice.
AC
-
Onepower,
These are the only real photos we have. The older ones are clearly hydraulic pumps and or even hydraulic motors.
Now, to produce any hydraulic flow with pressure the basic formula is gpm*psi/1714 = hp, not including loss due to efficiency.
The claim to get 350hp no mater what size it is, would need to have a phase change that of a combustion type beyond any mechanical input driven method.
A multi stage water pump can have a design to equal the pressure on the turbine to cancel out the thrust on either side of the shaft, but hydraulics is a totally different monster.
Even hydraulic axial piston pumps, being the most efficient in today's market, have problem at high pressures. I believe the key of using cooking oil was a phase change, either a combustion type or even water inject into the 300+ deg cooking oil.
I also believed it would have to be a closed loop, due to the explosive effect of super heated cooking oil, especially if water was injected.
I have tested so many design, I have one gear pump worth thousands of dollars with unbelievable 80gpm@3200 psi. But the input power need is over 150hp.
There is no free lunch pumping fluids, unless you are planning a type of phase change to create unbelievable power output.
The real questions to asked, did the Clem engine run off cooking oil as a fuel or was something added to create a different type of phase change.
hydraulic screw pump.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mY7vfOzWeU
Tom
-
If experimentors wish to still use the cone shape rotor may I suggest making the inner and outer of the cone in two parts and joined so as to make an air tight joint. However my peference is a series of spiral cut discs to replace the cone. A lot easier to construct
-
aussiebattler,
Same picture over a week ago, just how old is this machine part?
I would think by now you have something up and running?
Anyhow looking forward for those who have theory to test it with real prototypes soon. Time is running out....
Tom
-
aussiebattler,
Same picture over a week ago, just how old is this machine part?
Tom
Sorry Tommey. I don't keep chronological tabs on the things I make. Do you?
-
Hi Pot
How long u bin tryin to make Clems thingy now?
Kettle
-
aussiebattler,
I really enjoy your humor, but at the end of the day you would have to show us all a complete working prototype.
Lets look at your design:
First of all, input of power is needed. If you're planning to create any vacuum you will waste power jut to get it up to speed. Just when the water feeds it's self into the ports, then motor load will increase.
This would be the first lost of energy, as you increase speed the fluid is being force outward due to centrifugal forces and more power is lost. You won't get the velocity needed to over come these losses.
Good luck on your journey, it's going to be interesting.
Tom
-
aussiebattler,
I really enjoy your humor, but at the end of the day you would have to show us all a complete working prototype.
Lets look at your design:
First of all, input of power is needed. If you're planning to create any vacuum you will waste power jut to get it up to speed. Just when the water feeds it's self into the ports, then motor load will increase.
This would be the first lost of energy, as you increase speed the fluid is being force outward due to centrifugal forces and more power is lost. You won't get the velocity needed to over come these losses.
Good luck on your journey, it's going to be interesting.
Tom
Pardon me but I would not have to show you anything
What works for me works for you also
Forget about vacuum just conentrate on temp and pressure. Study my posts on "venturi effect"
As speed increases pressure at the nozzle (inside) increases. This raises temp also to high levels -~300+ (but only at the nozzles) This is in line with the laws of physics
As the pressure is released (through the nozzle) the oil gives up its heat also which converts to rotational force (also inline with the laws of physics.) As that heat loss is compensated by ambient the process continues
I hope this gives you understanding as realy it is quite simple and am surprised not many "get it"
ab
-
aussiebattler,
If you think it's that simple, then you would have to prove it.
Energy is not free, to generate heat in anyway will take energy, Input of mechanical work to output of heat will cost you greatly.
What do I know, you seem to have all the answers and theories in a box of cookies!
Tom
-
You still dont get it do you Tommey?
I before anybody else here state where the energy comes from - it comes from the heat contained in the ambient which replaces the heat loss at the venturis. The convection flow in the oil producesthe pressure that then increases in the spiral - (and I cant make that soind funny)
ab
-
You still dont get it do you Tommey?
I before anybody else here state where the energy comes from - it comes from the heat contained in the ambient which replaces the heat loss at the venturis. The convection flow in the oil producesthe pressure that then increases in the spiral - (and I cant make that soind funny)
ab
If you believe this to be the case:
Show me a single Venturi that can do any of this.
(just ab… anyone else don’t waste your time: temperature changes in a venturi system are proportional to the speed of the fluid)
-
If you believe this to be the case:
Show me a single Venturi that can do any of this.
(just ab… anyone else don’t waste your time: temperature changes in a venturi system are proportional to the speed of the fluid)
Do you not believe there are large temperature and pressure increases before the venturi hence high rate of discharge and then low pressure and low temp after?
temperature changes in a venturi system are proportional to the speed of the fluid
Do you mean directly or inversely proportional? (only smokey is to answer others dont waste your time )
-
Ok?
-
Tom
OK Think I got it Tommy. Your car has fallen to pieces and you want us to help you fix it?
ab
-
aussiebattler,
I'm amazed that you are so funny, but at the end of the day you will have to prove your theories.
You have a good idea, but even ideas needs to be proven. When do you plan to finish your project?
Theories is like writing a science fiction book, it all sounds good but until you prove it; it's nothing more then a fantasy!
Tom
-
Finish?
Nah
I'm having too much fun
ab
-
Go woke, go broke!
All talk and no action, is why this world is full of insane people who make claims and do nothing to prove it.
Even our education system is broken with theories after theories that are not facts.
Experiments always override theories no matter what they are.
Sometimes I wonder if these site have hacks and scams to keep others from finding answer to our energy needs.
I wouldn't be surprise if even the government is following these post and have insiders to create chaos and miss information!
I'm still keep to open source, and fully understand that this is the only way to change the system we live in today.
Those who control energy, control the world and freedom!
I hope to work with others on these projects, but sometime you have to wonder if we have hacks on these forums also.
Tom.
-
Experiments always override theories no matter what they are.
But I say....
Good theories overide bad experiments
ab
-
Sir,
I have often heard ,
“No such thing as a bad experiment “
Typically it takes an experiment to prove a theory..
IMO it should be possible to mimic this effect you propose…in a test chamber,
Or apparatus which can meet all criteria.
Granted we don’t need to see 350 hp ( Clems claim ?)
A few “ponies or hamster power” in a test rig which can show a measurable /scalable gain?
Can you model such an experiment.. or give specifics for this theory to manifest?
Temp , flow rate ,pressure ( or vacuum?) etc etc ?
Sincerely
Chet K
Ps
we are all here to bring change…
The more who can experiment ( simple testing of theory)
The better our chances to bring change..this is after all
How Open source works!
Pps
Your image is too blurry to read even when downloaded
?
Maybe post link ( sorry if you have already posted somewhere?)
-
I hope answers are here
ab
-
.
-
Continuing from my last post about using a long tapered gently curving pipe. What also seems to be overlooked by a lot of experimenters concerning the Clem engine is the nozzle and reaction force from that nozzle. As most of us know we use a small nozzle to increase the velocity of the fluid (gas or air). And of course the higher the velocity of the fluid being expelled the greater reaction force. But that is only one aspect of the reaction force. The density of the material being expelled also affects the amount of reaction force. The more dense the material the higher the reaction force.
But probably just as important as the velocity of the fluid is the amount of fluid being expelled. I think this is the primary area being ignored by most experimenters. We need a small nozzle to increase the velocity of the fluid but the more fluid we expel the more reaction force we get. For some reason most of the experiments I see are only using 4 small nozzles. They are getting the velocity but not the volume. The answer of course is to use more nozzles. I will be conducting some tests soon I hope, but my experience tells me that you probably need at least 8 nozzles in order to get the amount of thrust you need to make the Clem engine work.
Respectfully,
Carroll
-
I hope answers are here
ab
AB
Yes the answer is there ( somewhat… snippet from your PDF below)
I do believe a static test bed can manifest the pressure ( I know that’s a tuff question to ask
“What pressure”?)
Also : 300 degrees? No issues with manifesting any given temperature …within reason.
And the nozzle ? ( orifice or Venturi spec ?
Also not too difficult to get a ballpark feel for developed thrust ?
IMO
Easier to do a mockup than a total build .( for Carroll’s build recommendation also)
Thanks for sharing PDF
For clarity
Yes hot oil is quite dangerous to work with
However
Most things we play with here are equally as dicey…
On that note,
Tommey’s path towards investigation
Phase change water/atmosphere injected into hot oil is not gonna be a walk in the park either .
Below generic static test video of Water phase change in hot oil ….explosion video again !
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wkAbV-yXy0M (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wkAbV-yXy0M)
Slow motion starts approx .52sec- 1 minute into vid ..Mucho gusto …”instant” 1600 fold expansions …
Respectfully
Chet K